The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Assembly: Mr Speaker

Mr Speaker: I wish to advise the Assembly that I am to travel to Lima tomorrow to undertake a series of long-standing official engagements on behalf of the Assembly and in conjunction with the British Council and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Accordingly, I will miss the sitting tomorrow but will be back in time for the following sitting.

Assembly Standing Orders

Motion made:
That this Assembly suspends Standing Order 10(2) and Standing Order 10(6) for Monday 13 November 2000 — [The First and Deputy First Ministers]

Ms Jane Morrice: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to speak against this motion to suspend Standing Orders. This is setting a precedent that is totally improper at the start of the Programme for Government. We are committed to family-friendly working hours and childcare. It is not a good idea to suspend Standing Orders to allow us to speak beyond six o’clock tonight. This debate is important and could have been extended into Wednesday. It is totally improper for this House to suspend Standing Orders, defeating our proud achievement of securing family-friendly working hours for this Assembly.

Mr Speaker: If the Member wishes to speak, it is possible for her to be called to speak. Of course, other Members would then have to be given the opportunity to give their views and the proposer would have to be given the opportunity to respond.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, will you rule on the issue? It has been suggested that there is some impropriety in the proposal. Surely it is quite in order and perfectly proper. If the Assembly wishes to take extra time to debate an issue, it should be allowed to do so, and there is provision for that in Standing Orders.

Mr Speaker: There is no question of its not being perfectly proper. In fact, this has occurred on a number of occasions. Standing Orders are there to facilitate good order, but also to facilitate the work of the Assembly. There are occasions when the business managers judge that the better function of the Assembly can be achieved by a suspension of Standing Orders, in particular Standing Orders which refer to timing and so forth. However, if it is the case that Members wish to speak to it, they may speak to it. If the Member wishes to speak, I will give her the opportunity to speak. If other Members so wish, they must also be given the opportunity to speak, and the proposer must have an opportunity to respond.

Ms Jane Morrice: I will be happy to withdraw the word "improper" and replace it with "inappropriate".
I am sure that most Members will appreciate the struggle we had in the Standing Orders Committee to secure family-friendly working hours for this Assembly when it was originally established. People wondered how we could do the business of Government on a nine-to-five basis. We asked "Why not?"
The cut-off at six o’clock on Mondays was a huge leap forward for the family-friendly approach to working hours. Not only does it allow the men and women of this Assembly to go home to their families at six o’clock; it also allows women greater access to public life and to this Assembly. We can start the business of Government earlier at 10.30 am, rather than in the afternoon and into the night, with decisions being made late at night when we are tired, instead of early in the morning when we are refreshed and prepared to work.
Why did the Business Committee not consider the Programme for Government important enough to go beyond Monday into Tuesday and Wednesday? Standing Orders allow us to work through Tuesday evening, rolling over to Wednesday morning. The Programme for Government is vital for the Assembly and its work in Northern Ireland.

Mr Peter Robinson: Did the Member or her party propose this at the Business Committee? Did her party vote against it at the Business Committee? Is not the Business Committee the place to do it, rather than in the House?

Ms Jane Morrice: We would oppose this in the Business Committee. However, had we done so, I doubt we would have had the opportunity to win the debate. I am doing the democratic thing: standing in the Assembly and calling on Members to vote against the motion. It sets a precedent of extending the working hours set out in Standing Orders at the whim of the Assembly. We must also take into account the option of continuing this debate into Tuesday and Wednesday. I ask Members to consider family-friendly working hours and the importance of the debate and vote against the motion.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member’s suggestion that the debate be continued into Tuesday and Wednesday raises a matter of order. That proposition is not available at present. Were Standing Orders not suspended, I would be required to put the Question at six o’clock. The debate could not continue beyond that time, and the motion would be voted on at that stage. Continuing into Tuesday or Wednesday is not a possibility at this stage. That is simply a matter of order that I need to draw to the Member’s attention.

Ms Jane Morrice: I ask Members to vote against the motion and put our achievements on family-friendly working hours before our ability to go beyond the limit of our working hours at six o’clock.

Mr Nigel Dodds: When this matter was raised in the Business Committee, there was unanimity on the need for an extended period of time to debate this very important issue. We support the suspension of Standing Orders in this case in order to facilitate extra debate. It would certainly be an issue if Standing Orders were suspended, or if there were a motion to suspend them, in order to curtail debate or prevent Members from having their say on an issue of concern to them.
The motion before the House will allow Members to have their say on an extremely important issue. It is invidious and wrong for a Member whose party did not raise any objections to the motion or speak against it at the Business Committee to raise the matter now on the Floor of the House in this fashion. There are proper channels through which to do this, and they have not been observed. I can see no worthy grounds on which the Member’s proposal should succeed.

Mr Speaker: I shall make one brief comment. I discourage the House from entertaining discussions on the Floor of the Chamber about what may or may not have happened in the Business Committee, given that discussions through the usual channels are usually best kept in that context. That applies both to those who raise questions and to those who respond. It is best if the matter can be dealt with there.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly suspends Standing Order 10(2) and Standing Order 10(6) for Monday 13 November 2000.

Programme for Government

Mr Speaker: It may be useful if I outline how I hope to facilitate this debate. To provide for the discussion of thematic issues, it has been agreed through the usual channels that we divide consideration of the draft programme into three sections.
After the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister propose the motion, section one will deal with chapters one, six and seven of the Programme for Government, covering the overall approach including external relations and style of operation. Section two will deal with chapters two and three covering equality, human rights, poverty and health. Finally, section three will cover the issues in chapters four and five, education, training, the economy and infrastructure.
While there will be three sections to the debate, the normal Standing Order, 17(2), will still apply and a Member may not speak more than once to a single motion, except for the Member who is moving the motion or winding up the debate. Members called during a particular section should speak to that section. However, they may make comments about any other part of the draft Programme for Government when they are called to speak. Indeed, if they have comments to make they will have to make them at that time as they will not be given a second opportunity to speak.
To facilitate the debate, at the start of each section I will call a Minister to speak, and at the end of a section I will again call a Minister, or Ministers, who may wish to comment on matters raised. All Members, including Ministers, but excluding the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, will have the same amount of time, because I have had a large number of requests to speak. I have looked at those requests, and the indications from some Whips of the number of Members who wish to speak — although the indications I get at the start and end of debates often bear little relation to each other, which makes it hard to judge.
With 10 minutes for both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to open, there will not be more than five minutes for each other Member, including the Ministers, to speak during the debate — even with the extension into the evening. Had the previous motion fallen, there would have been even less time available.
I must rule that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will have 10 minutes each to open, and time to wind at the end if they so choose. For the rest of the debate, those called will have five minutes. I trust that is clear. It is an unusual debate, but we are trying to work as closely within the Standing Orders as possible. If Members are clear, we will proceed.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I beg to move
That this Assembly notes the Executive Committee’s proposed Programme for Government; notes that it will guide the public spending plans for 2001-02 in the Budget; notes that the Programme for Government will be presented for the approval of the Assembly in the New Year, embracing public service agreements for all Departments.
Today’s debate on the draft Programme for Government is, arguably, the most important business we have transacted since this Assembly came into existence. That might seem a bold assertion, and I acknowledge that the debate may well lack some of the political pyrotechnics of other occasions, but it is, in my opinion, the most important meeting we have had to date. I say that because this debate represents the beginning of the maturity of the new politics that the agreement has achieved for Northern Ireland. It is, or ought to be, a new beginning.
The Programme for Government hopes to represent a contract between this Assembly and its Executive, and the people of Northern Ireland. It represents a statement of the policies and objectives we have identified as our main priorities for the months and years ahead. It will act as a road map, describing the direction in which the Executive hopes to take our public services. In this programme we have the coming to maturity of the work of devolved Government in Northern Ireland. It is our opportunity to start making a difference, to begin to put behind us the sterility and neglect of direct rule and to apply our imagination and energies to the good of all our people.
A number of Ministers will speak in greater detail about the aspects of the Programme for Government. The Deputy First Minister and I will speak in more general terms, providing an overview of the programme as a whole.
Our objective is to deliver a new beginning for Government in Northern Ireland — a Government that is responsive to the community it serves and in tune with the people who elected it. It will be a Government that will seek to provide new and better public services and opportunities for the whole community, Protestant, Catholic, those of other religions or of none. It will seek to provide new and better public services and opportunities for Unionists, Nationalists, Republicans and those of no particular political conviction, males, females, the young as well as the elderly, those of British or Irish descent and those who have only more recently come to live among us.
The Executive will endeavour to provide real, meaningful and effective Government for all of the people who make up our community. In doing so, we hope to see this community grow in its self-confidence and its economic and social well-being — a community that no longer looks exclusively in on itself but which is sufficiently confident to look beyond its own shores and play its part in the wider world, whether through business, education, culture or other endeavours.
The aim is to produce a Northern Ireland at ease with itself, an inclusive Northern Ireland, where all can feel they belong and where all can enjoy equal esteem. We also want to construct a more prosperous Northern Ireland, where everyone enjoys equality of opportunity and to move towards a world where there are jobs for all who are capable of work. We wish to help society to become more outward-looking, more confident about learning from others and more assured that it has much to contribute to the rest of the world.
The Programme for Government also demonstrates that the diverse parties which constitute the Executive have been fully able to work together constructively for the benefit of Northern Ireland. That co-operation is important in itself, but it is not enough. The final judgement on this programme will be made on the basis of what it achieves and whether what it contains can indeed make a difference to the lives of people across Northern Ireland.
The kernel of the programme is a list of 230 actions which the Executive propose to take after consultation and a vote in the Assembly. Many of these actions are specific and costed — policies for which funds are provided in the draft Budget, which the Assembly will also consider. Members will want to consider the details of these actions. All have budgetary implications, so any proposed changes need to be reflected in the consideration of the Budget, which we will debate tomorrow.
There is a great deal we wish to change, improve and develop, but major changes need to be carefully planned and require wide consultation. That is why the programme contains 15 reviews of policy covering a wide range of issues from selection in education to safety on the roads. As these reviews report and are implemented, we believe that the face of Northern Ireland will begin to change for the better and that the pace of change will accelerate.
The programme sets out the intentions of the Administration, and it is important that those aims are delivered quickly and effectively. Members and the wider public need assurance that the large amounts of taxpayers’ money being deployed here actually improve the services that people need. Our determination is to deliver the programme effectively and to be seen to be doing so, and that is reflected in an important administrative innovation, the public service agreements, to which all Departments will attach targets and timetables for their actions.
These public service agreements are being worked up and will be presented to the Assembly in the next debate on this programme. Their aim is to deliver more and better services to the public and to provide better value for money. As we said in our statement on 24 October 2000, these agreements will form a contract between individual Departments and the Executive. They will provide the transparency and accountability which was not adequately provided for under direct rule. They will form an important part of our new way of doing business, and they will create a culture change within the Government, focusing managers’ attention not merely on the inputs of financial resources but on the outputs of real services delivered to real people.
We are determined to improve the effectiveness of the Government, and this is reflected in the provisions contained in the programme to achieve joined-up Government. A joined-up approach was built in to the development of this programme, and, in particular, it defines our priority areas for action. We will develop this approach in the Executive’s own work, with Ministers working in sub-committees to develop cross-cutting policies in a much more coherent way and to ensure that a silo mentality does not inhibit their delivery.
Hence also our strong focus on the Executive’s programme funds. These are to be organised and agreed by the Executive as a whole. They will enable us to carry out much more effective cross-cutting work. They will also enable us to deal with major infrastructure and rural projects, to focus on the needs of children and to work on developing new policies in important areas, on improving the quality of service and on tackling the issue of social inclusion and community regeneration. In addition, as set out in the final chapter, there are a number of cross-cutting initiatives that can improve the effectiveness of the Government. These include the increased use of electronics to create new and more effective means of providing services to and information for citizens and to handle data and information within the Government. We also need to link this to the reform of public administration. We hope to have more details on the review in the coming months.
We must face up to the significant problems of finance too. We need to tackle the weaknesses of the Barnett formula, which does not always meet our needs. On the other hand, our ability to find innovative ways to finance public services must be integral to this strategy. We must examine if, for example, public-private partnerships and the private finance initiative are practical solutions.
Having dealt with those matters in general terms, I now invite the Deputy First Minister to give more detail on some aspects of the Programme for Government.

Mr Seamus Mallon: The First Minister has emphasised that the Programme for Government is an exercise in joined-up Government. It flows from the collective reflection and responsibility of the Executive and not from the entrenched individual interests of Departments. The Executive’s programme funds are perhaps the strongest example in the Programme for Government of our commitment to innovate and break away from traditional departmental approaches. The development by the Executive of a clarity of purpose, an overall vision and priorities and sub-priorities provides the framework within which Departments will implement the 230 actions through the operation of public service agreements. The Programme for Government has been constructed to unlock the energies and realise the economies that become possible when Departments and agencies work together to achieve an interlocking set of aims.
One important aspect of coherence was our determination to ensure that the concept of equality ran through the draft programme. Our commitment to equality is a promise to every citizen that he or she shall share in basic human dignity. This dignity rests not on possessions or position, but on the right to be treated as a person with opportunities equal to those of all others. Chapter 2 has a major focus on this theme, but equality will be delivered in all the programme’s areas. We hope, for example, to provide high quality education with equal access to all and tackle the unacceptable levels of ill health, which are closely linked with social disadvantage, through a public health strategy. These are two key objectives for this Administration. I believe that we have threaded equality into every relevant aspect of the draft programme. We look forward, at this consultative stage of the process, to taking account of the views of the equality groups and the Equality Commission.
A second element that has run through our thinking is realism: facing up to the real challenges that we face with the resources at our disposal and hence the parallel of the Programme for Government and the Budget. Not everything can be achieved as rapidly as we would like. We would like to do more in every area, and we are sure that the Assembly would wish to do more. For example, no one is content with the progress we are making in tackling Northern Ireland’s waiting list for health care and community services. Nor can we be satisfied with any of the objectives and targets that are in the Programme for Government. However, we must be frank about the reality, even as we aspire to overcome all of those problems. Let us not forget either that each year we will present an updated programme which will allow us to modify our approach in the light of experience. In the words of President Dwight Eisenhower,
"Plans are nothing, planning is everything."
I will now say a few words about the challenges which we face, especially those for which the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have a particular responsibility. We have to face the reality of deep divisions in our society. It cannot be otherwise after centuries of division and 30 years of conflict. In particular, we recognise the need to put in place a cross-departmental strategy to promote community relations. New thinking, new energy and above all moral and political support must be given to this crucial activity. The promotion of a cohesive, inclusive and just society is a particular challenge for us, but it also applies to all modern societies as they deal with economic restructuring, growing individualism and the weakening of their traditional social institutions.
We identified a healthy society with a future for young people as a society that provides educational opportunities for all and creates jobs in the new economy — the key social issues to be addressed. Looking at the physical backdrop to economic and social activity, we identified the importance of a sustainable environment, the need for a new focus on the rural economy and the creation of a renewed infrastructure after the under-investment in recent years as major priorities.
Finally, there is the need to shape a society which will develop relationships and interact successfully with its neighbours — on this island, throughout Britain and worldwide. Chapters 2-6 of the document set out the detailed sub-priorities, programmes and actions that respond to those challenges. In our discussions in the Executive, we considered a variety of ways in which we could have described those priorities. Our conclusion was that we should limit the priority areas to five, each with a very broad approach. We decided that organising our work around those five priority areas, producing greater overall coherence for our policies while having a wider number of sub-priorities, would produce the right balance.
But public policy is not an exact science. We are a new Administration, operating in unique circumstances, trying to break new ground. We are open to hear Members’ views on whether this balance is correct or whether there are significant issues that need greater emphasis and future development.
Chapter 6 covers the fifth priority, namely ‘Developing North/South, East/West and International Relations’. There we have set out the ways in which the Executive will seek to work with other Governments and bodies such as the European Commission to realise the full potential of enhanced co-operation and maximise the benefit to Northern Ireland. The development of the global economy, the development of the European Union and the nature of many policy areas such as the environment, which, in essence, know no boundaries, require us to work on a much wider canvas than just that of Northern Ireland. Members may be interested to know that we have already sent copies of the draft Programme for Government to all of the Administrations with which we interact.
We need to seek the benefits of co-operation on the North/South, east-west axes as well as internationally. Whatever the short-term difficulties — and they must be overcome as quickly as possible — the Executive, as set out in the Programme for Government, are fully committed to taking forward the work of the North/South Ministerial Council.
I pay tribute to those Ministers and officials who have worked hard to get the new North/South bodies up and running. With devolution, we now have the opportunity to make our views known and to play our part with neighbouring Governments for our mutual benefit. While there is a wide range of east-west issues to develop, we have identified transport and the fuel tax problem as matters of particular importance to Northern Ireland. In addition, we will develop more effective links with the European institutions by establishing an office in Brussels, and we will develop our presence in north America.
Finally, we pointed to the important work that we need to do to improve the international image of Northern Ireland — we all know the legacy that our history has left in this area. If we are to prosper and gain investment and tourism, it is important that we act in a coherent way to improve our image.
I finish by emphasising the importance we place on the Assembly’s views and those of the wider community. I am disappointed that, to date, there has been a relevant absence of public analysis and discussion about the Programme for Government. I hope that today’s debate, involving so many Ministers and Back-Benchers, will help to stimulate wider discussion.
The draft programme was prepared by the Executive and is a document for which the Executive take responsibility. It provides the best structure for taking our work forward and for the important budgetary decisions that must be made next month. It is also a programme developed and approved through the Assembly process. The Executive look to Members for help to frame the document and guide its annual development. The agreement places responsibilities on us all to work in new ways to create a new approach.
Ours is a new and unique style of politics, and the programme must play a central role in this process. It is a working, developing document that must, and will, evolve. The input and approval of all Members is essential for the achievement of that evolution.

Mrs Joan Carson: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Programme for Government. It is another milestone on the road to developing good government in Northern Ireland. There are many hurdles to pass in order to overcome the legacy of direct rule and stagnated legislation and catch up with the remainder of the United Kingdom. Years of underinvestment are making it difficult in all Departments.
To most people, environmental issues relate only to birds, bees and trees, but in the Programme for Government, environmental issues cut across all Departments. On page 12, paragraph 1.8, ‘A Better Environment’ and paragraph 1.9, ‘A New Basis for the Rural Economy’ are worth reading, and I ask Members to read them. I was struck by the use of the word "sustainability" in paragraph 1.8. It is used many times throughout the document with regard to built heritage, natural heritage, agriculture, economy, rural life, countryside, air, land, and water quality. We must latch on to this term.
The awareness of sustainability is common to the rest of the United Kingdom. On 24 September, Lord Dubs emphasised the value of embedding nature conservation into other policy areas — particularly agriculture support and countryside management. He also said that the ability to achieve that would be an important test of whether things were developing in a sustainable way.
There are some high sounding words in the Programme for Government. Paragraph 6.9 on page 83 states
"A high quality environment and a modern water and sewerage network will be of benefit to everyone".
That sounds good but requires flesh on the words.
Page 54 states that the Executive will
"assist district councils in implementing acceptable measures for the disposal of waste".
How are the Executive going to do that? What direction will be given? Will district councils be given direction with advice and financial help? I am sure that councillors are awaiting an explanation.
Page 54 also states that the Executive will
"maintain effective arrangements for the treatment and disposal of sewage and sewerage sludge".
It is just not good enough to maintain the status quo. I wish to see treatment for phosphates in place at all sewage disposal works.
Page 54 also states that by the end of 2001 there will be a strategy in place which will, through advice and research, seek to reduce eutrophication levels. That conflicts with the action to maintain existing sewage treatment and disposal. Anyone living near Lough Neagh will be aware of that.
Pages 50 and 51 mention tourism. I welcome the fact that a start has been made to develop the different aspects of it. In paragraph5.3.3 it states that in 2001 there will be a launch of water-based tourism programmes. However, it also states that by March2003 a strategy will be prepared to develop the recreational potential of inland waterways as a tourist attraction. It is rather difficult to understand what is meant by this. Surely strategy preparation comes before action. A clear direction of action is required. Will that happen in 2001 or in 2003?
The word "sustainability" is used throughout the document. However, sustainability will be impossible if the funding for a sustainable environment is not made available. I noticed that bids for environmental programmes were not met and that therefore work on landscape protection and nature conservation will not be undertaken. The funding needed for sustainable built heritage has not been met, and this will have a detrimental knock-on effect on bids to other funding bodies such as the Heritage Lottery Fund. If the Programme for Government is to be effective on the issue of environmental sustainability —

Mr Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Mrs Joan Carson: I welcome the draft programme, but there are many areas that require much more work.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: I commend the Executive for bringing together the draft Programme for Government and for the consultation prior to its implementation. There are several key areas that I want to highlight.
With regard to the proposed HousingBill, I am concerned about the introduction of a discretionary grants system in NorthernIreland. Such a system would leave the grants budget vulnerable. It would also be a difficult system to implement as regards the setting of eligibility criteria. This model, as implemented in England, is unsatisfactory, especially for those who live in unfit dwellings and are in dire need of improvements to their homes. The motto should be: if the system is not broken, why fix it?
There are two important exceptions to that. It is particularly important in my constituency of Fermanagh and SouthTyrone that the matter of closing orders be reviewed. There must be a better way of dealing with the situation where the only option considered by the HousingExecutive for many deserving cases is to place a closing order on a lived-in house just because the resident was not aware of the fine print in the application. We have the highest level of unfit housing in the BritishIsles. It is currently 17·5%, which is more than twice the NorthernIreland average. Since1997, 307properties have been subjected to closing orders in Northern Ireland, and 171 of those have been in Fermanagh. It is imperative that a more adaptable form of legislation is introduced for replacement grants. Also, under new legislation, all previous refusals should be reviewed to see if some of the deserving cases can be reconsidered for grant aid. After all, the Programme for Government states, among other things, that decent living accommodation will be provided for everyone.
The other grants issue that needs to be addressed is the eligibility requirement for minor works grants. The applicant must be on income support and must be over 60. There are many people outside that category who need repairs to their homes, but they find themselves excluded, particularly since the major cuts were introduced in the amounts payable for repair grants on the foot of environmental health notices.
I welcome the strong commitments to ensure that the Health Service caters for the needs of different users, irrespective of their backgrounds, and to modernise and improve hospital and primary care services. I want to see that commitment, particularly in respect of acute medical care, delivered at the Erne and South Tyrone hospitals. As I emphasised to the Minister of Health, the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone are as entitled to these services as the people of Belfast, because the real test of rural proofing will be in the delivery of a decent health service to rural areas.
A further requirement for rural areas, and particularly for my constituency, is out-of-hours GP (general practitioner) cover. Presently, some people on the periphery have to travel up to 45 miles to get access to a GP after hours. While we all recognise that GPs need some time off, patients require a more amenable medical service. The Department should explore this issue in a cross- border context with the Department of Health in the South. We must find better arrangements, whereby GPs have their time off and the public has a satisfactory service.

Mr Peter Robinson: With only five minutes at one’s disposal there is no time for detailed consideration of the Programme for Government. There is time only for a broad sweep of its content.
As I listened to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister speak, I felt there was a real danger that they are starting to believe their own rhetoric. It was very high in its waffle content; indeed, almost as high as the Programme for Government itself.
Here is a Programme for Government that is full of platitudes and padding and general concepts and clichés, that are mainly shibboleths, but have very little substance. Everyone, as they go through the 80 pages of this Programme for Government — this first effort of devolution — will recognise that it is 90% packaging and 10% content.
The people of Northern Ireland are looking for more than just grand visions and fine words. They want to see something tangible happening on the ground; they want to see real proposals that will change their lives, rather than all this candyfloss that has been thrown into the Programme for Government. I recognise that there are great difficulties in a power-sharing arrangement. In any other Government, parties produce their manifestos; people vote for something to happen; and when the party that they have voted for is elected, they expect to see the outpouring of the manifesto commitments that have been made. However, when people have been elected with different manifestos, promising different and often contradictory objectives, clearly people do not get what they voted for, and a mishmash results.
This programme has been a year in the making. Governments at Westminster are ready to put forward programmes for Government within days of being elected. The same is true of the Republic, while Scotland took a matter of weeks. Here, we had to wait about two years — they certainly had the best of two years to think about it — only to get what is a very disappointing effort.
It really suffers from the "Nationalist psyche" syndrome, something that Unionists have noticed in previous negotiations. When Unionists go into negotiations, they want to do a deal. They want to get down to brass tacks and discuss specific proposals.
But not Nationalists — they come in and want to analyse everything. They then want to set out a whole series of principles, and once they catch people on their concepts and principles, there is only one conclusion left. I do not know whether the First Minister and his Colleagues have recognised that this is precisely what they have fallen into with this Programme for Government, particularly in the area of North/Southery. The Executive have produced a Programme for Government where North/Southery permeates almost every aspect of Government. It is oozing out of every pore of the Government. I think that the Unionist community in general will be very concerned when it starts to look at the detail.
The one point that I do agree with the Deputy First Minister on is in hoping that the public debate starts on this Programme for Government. I hope that people start to analyse what the Programme for Government is and where the Government are intending to take us all. The sorry specimen in front of us has very few innovative ideas in it. Because they want to show themselves as being dynamic and part of the whole development of the society, they look to the young and to economic development. The greatest disappointment for me is that there is no section for our senior citizens. There is nothing for them, apart from a few exceptions such as the proposal for free fares. I found it interesting —

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member’s time is up.

Mr Gerry Adams: Nuair a seoladh an Clár Rialtais, chuir mé barúil Shinn Féin in iúl, agus i rith na díospóireachta seo beidh ár bpáirtí ag cur a bharúil in iúl arís. Ach ba mhaith liom caint faoin dóigh a bhfuil an Chéad-Aire ag baint mí-úsáid as an chomhaontú agus ag baint mí-úsáid as a oifig féin. Tá sé ag baint an Chláir Rialtais anuas — ag iarraidh é a chur i leataoibh.
In my remarks today I want to concentrate on the role of the First Minister. When the Programme for Government was launched, our party detailed its views on it, covering both the positive areas and those areas we have reservations about. I listened with amusement to Mr Peter Robinson of the DUP. His party has had no part in any negotiations at any time in the last eight or nine years, and yet he can stand outside the process and complain about it.
The Programme for Government was launched here on Tuesday 24 October, and the Executive met that Thursday. The leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, on the very same day, wrote to the delegates of the Ulster Unionist Council. Here is the rub. We have to decide whether the Government is here or whether it is vested in the Ulster Unionist Council, which has met 22 times and which has threatened matters again, with yet another meeting planned for January. In his letter the First Minister said — and I paraphrase — that what is required is an exit strategy with a re-entry strategy. He accused his opponents in the party of having an exit strategy without a re-entry strategy. He then went on to give notice that he would outline a considered response involving suspension. He said that suspension was preferable and the only way to make progress —

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for a ruling on a matter. I am sure that there will be those in the Assembly who will be pleased to see Mr Adams expounding the virtues of joined-up Government, but to what extent are you going to allow people to discuss issues which are not directly contained in the Programme for Government?

Mr Speaker: It is certainly preferable that Members concentrate first of all on those aspects of the Programme for Government that are in the section under debate. That is what I have encouraged. I cannot stop Members ranging widely over the content of the Programme for Government, and I guess that some Members will want to make comments about the programme as a whole.
Given that they have only five minutes in which to do so, I think they would be wise to focus on the content. I will allow Members a fair degree of latitude within their five minutes, since the Programme for Government is wide-ranging in both its purpose and its content. Please continue, Mr Adams.

Mr Gerry Adams: Thank you. I am dealing with the sustainability of this experiment. I am dealing with the sustainability of these institutions and, among other things, I am dealing with the refusal of the First Minister to nominate Sinn Féin members and with his taking away of the cross-border, all-Ireland strand. These are supposed to be interlocked and interdependent.
I am also dealing with the other demands which have been put forward by the First Minister; for example, a call for a moratorium on policing as well as a demand to change the remit of the decommissioning body, neither of which is within the authority of this Assembly or the office of the First Minister. I make all of these points because this is not joined-up Government. You cannot have an Executive or an Assembly putting together the type of Programme for Government which we are debating here today if the First Minister has already commenced an exit strategy and if — in his own words — he differs only from his party political opponents on a matter of tactics. In other words, he thinks they will collapse the institutions, and it will not be possible to put them back in place, while he simply wants to suspend them so that they can be restored.
The answer has to be made very clear. Any Government must be a Government of equals. That is of paramount importance. This Assembly has to be based on the principle of equality: the rights of all citizens, whether we disagree with them or not, must be cherished. All citizens have to have due entitlement to have their rights upheld — and they have to have their rights upheld by the First Minister. I want to appeal to the First Minister today to review, to reconsider, to step back from the process which he has commenced, because the only conclusion to what he has begun will see not just the suspension of these political institutions, but their collapse.

Mr David Ford: We will have to put the Programme for Government to the test to see how well it deals with the entire range of problems which affect this society. There is no doubt that the draft programme is long; it is detailed; it is even specific in places, and perhaps it is a good start on socio-economic policies. If, as Mr Peter Robinson suggested, this were Wales or Scotland, we could, perhaps, give the Executive seven out of 10 for a moderate start — although we might have to deduct a few marks for the length of time it took to hand in its homework.
Despite the agreement, the fundamental problem that we in this Assembly have to face is the deep division in our society, and it is in that respect that the programme is sadly lacking. When my party launched its alternative Programme for Government last month, we highlighted a central theme which we determined as "sharing over separation". While the Executive’s draft programme does have many positive policy suggestions, it fails to address fundamentally the divisions in this society — divisions which, if they are not addressed, could well destroy the agreement and the institutions. Having listened to the last two Members who spoke, I think that is evident.
I am concerned about health, education, agriculture, the environment and railways, but we will never deal with those if the Executive do not do something to address the real problem which we have to face. It starts off quite well; on page 10 there is a nice piece of rhetoric:
"We must promote a just society where everyone enjoys equality of opportunity, whatever their religion, gender, ethnic origin and personal background."
and it continues. This is fine rhetoric, but if you wade through the full programme, you will emerge wondering what the plans actually are. Section 2.5 is supposed to deal with that. There are only seven points in it, but not one has a target attached to it. The flowery rhetoric belies the fact that there are no specific targets to promote community relations and sharing over separation, and that is the fundamental weakness — the utterly key weakness — in the way the programme has been put together.
Let us look at some of the possibilities. My party has called for the number of pupils in integrated education to be boosted to 10% by 2010 through the transformation of existing schools. The Programme for Government has one weak reference to integrated education: one line in 85 pages. We have called for measures to aid the integration of public housing. The Programme for Government does not mention promoting mixed housing at all. We have called for more funding for community relations projects, and, while there are certainly gestures in that direction, there is no detailed strategy for improving community relations. One would have thought that after a year of working on a Programme for Government, we might have seen something on that.
During the summer, we had complaints in this Chamber, outside in the streets and in every local newspaper about the proliferation of paramilitary flags and emblems in housing estates and on public property throughout Northern Ireland. Where are the measures in the Programme for Government to condemn that kind of intimidation? I cannot find them. There is a need for new shared symbols in Northern Ireland. Last week, the problems caused by a lack of shared symbols were demonstrated, but there is nothing in the programme about it. My party has called for all Government policies to be proofed to ensure that they promote sharing over separation. There are no plans for that in the Programme for Government.
Of course, targeting social need is important, as are rural proofing and compliance with human rights legislation, but what about the biggest divide in this society? Where does the Programme for Government address it? It simply does not. All kinds of issues are missing. Where is the "green economy" task force? Where are specific problems addressed, as opposed to bleating about the Barnett formula, on funding for Northern Ireland as well as Wales and Scotland? Where is the proposal for a children’s commissioner? What about student finance? What about freedom-of-information legislation? I have asked about that in this Chamber and have been told nothing very much.
Those matters are all important, but the priority remains building a shared society. George Holyoake, the nineteenth- century radical publisher, once said that a liberal is one who seeks to secure for everyone the same rights that he asks for himself. In this place, we have turned things on their head. I stand here as a liberal demanding for myself the rights that the two major sections of this society have taken for themselves but denied to every other minority.
There is a danger that if we apply that we will not have a united, pluralist and diverse society, but a dualist one wherein only two sections are recognised. The fundamental test that we will be looking for in January 2001 is what specific measures within the final Programme for Government will be applied to promote sharing and end separation.

Mr Cedric Wilson: Regardless of the merits or otherwise of the Programme for Government presented to the Assembly today, my party will be neither supporting nor endorsing it.
Mr Trimble has said that this is the most important business ever to be discussed in this Assembly. He referred to it as "the maturing of the Belfast Agreement." It may well be that. However, what we will witness today is an attempt to place a veneer of democracy and normality over something extremely undemocratic and very abnormal. What is abnormal — and the public are well aware of it, even if those in this Chamber have become slightly insensitive to it — is that those who have participated in this Programme for Government include a party that is fronting a terrorist organisation. As we sit here planning government, they are planning further acts of terrorism, restocking and replenishing their weaponry, planning bombing campaigns and targeting members of the security forces.
It is also abnormal that in this very Chamber one of the major parties in the Executive and involved in this Programme for Government, namely Mr Mallon and the SDLP, is not prepared to give its unqualified support to the security forces in Northern Ireland. It will not support the RUC. Along with its partner Sinn Féin, it even questions whether it will ever be able to endorse any law enforcement group in the Province.
There is another extremely abnormal thing about the situation we find ourselves in today. Many Members were elected on a mandate to oppose the Belfast Agreement. They stood, as I did, through the referendum campaign and during the election for this Assembly pledging themselves to oppose the outworking of the Belfast Agreement and the institutions and Executive set up under that agreement. When Sinn Féin Members took the Pledge of Office under Annex A of the Belfast Agreement, committing themselves to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means, others in the Chamber had to make a pledge to participate in the preparation of a Programme for Government. That programme is before us today, and those Members will have to operate within the framework of that programme when it has been agreed with the Executive Committee and endorsed by the Assembly.
I make no apology for saying that my party will not be supporting this draft Programme for Government. Others have in that under the Pledge of Office they swore that they would see to the implementation of the programme once it had been agreed. The majority of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland is opposed to the Belfast Agreement, to the outworkings of the agreement and to those elected to this House to represent that view who are reneging on their pledges and promises. We in the Northern Ireland Unionist Party intend fully to meet our commitments. We are opposed to the Belfast Agreement, to terrorists in Government, and we are opposed to the sham that passes for democracy.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I noted that the First Minister in his introduction stated that they had produced a Programme for Government that
"represents the beginning of the maturity of the new politics which the Belfast Agreement has achieved for Northern Ireland."
I have to say that we have reached an immature stage where, if the programme goes out today, we will have already created what is mentioned on page 25
"a strategy for the devlopment of centres of curiosity and imagination".
I do not know what that entails, but we have already created a centre of curiosity and imagination, because one party has not participated in the Programme for Government. Another party which did participate is probably now prohibited from taking part in an aspect of that Programme for Government.
I will follow the themes set out by the Executive, and I want to make a number of points relating to targets and timetables. It was unfortunate that the public service agreements have not arrived with the Assembly, for they would have contained most of the meat for the Programme for Government.
The First Minister informed us that the public service agreements should be with us by next month, although potentially in draft form only. We are not approaching this in a coherent way. This Programme for Government lists some actions and some targets but very few. Most will be in the public service agreements, but we do not have them, so we cannot compare one with the other.
We are told there are 32 action points. One in particular tells us that by 2002 we will have some type of health education programme for schools. That point has been talked about for a number of years. Why was it not linked with the issue of teenage pregnancy? We do not have these programmes in our schools at the moment, and clearly that is an emergency. That is one example of where the Government have not met their own target of being cohesive.
I welcome the Executives’ programme funds, though like my Colleague, Mr Ford, I feel that an opportunity has been lost. We have heard enough about the need for a children’s ccmmissioner in Northern Ireland. The Deputy First Minister has, I understand, already signed an Early Day Motion in Westminster to have the remit of the children’s commissioner extended to Northern Ireland as it has been to Scotland and Wales, and when the possibility of there being a children’s fund was mooted, he should have followed this up. However, there is no mention of it under the children’s fund in the Programme for Government.
What will the distribution network be? The Chancellor has set up a children’s fund in Great Britain, although we know that the distribution network there was not to be used to subsidise statutory programmes but to create new funding for those who work with children. We should do likewise here, but the Programme for Government does not state that.
The welfare-to-work programme has one of the largest budgets. If we bring in those funds, we will have the flexibility that should go with devolved expenditure. At the moment, we are greatly restricted in how we spend funding from the New Deal programme. Since Northern Ireland has the highest unemployment, I would have liked to see that in the Programme for Government.
I have raised the private finance initiative over and over again. We are to decide whether this is strategic and practicable by 2002. I am tied up in planning appeals at the moment because the private finance initiative has had such a disastrous impact in a community in which I have lived. It has been decided to build a school under the private finance initiative, and all the hockey pitches have been sold off. The Department of Education has said that the pitches were surplus to needs. However, at the inquiry, the Department of the Environment said that that should never have been done. Is that cohesion? It certainly is not. In the Programme for Government, I would have liked to see a reference to Departments’ talking to one another about what they are going to do about open space.
I would like to point out something about justice, equality and inclusion. In the Northern Ireland Civil Service review, only three women were appointed to senior positions. If any new review is to take place, it should have an affirmative action programme to take account of that.
The lack of consultation worries me greatly. The Assembly Committees are mentioned once in the entire document, as is the Civic Forum. If the Assembly Committees have powers for policy development, consultation and scrutiny, why was so little reference made to their important work in the Programme for Government?
Finally, the issues in the appendix were the most useful, because there we have actual performance indicators. They should be integrated into the Programme for Government, not annexed.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member’s time is up.

Mr Robert McCartney: It has been said that a house that is built upon sand cannot stand. This is a Programme for Government, but it is a programme by a Government whose sustainability is by no means certain. We are masking the real questions by talking about social and economic matters. These are very important, but it is rather like talking about the social and economic welfare of the inhabitants of a house which is in imminent danger of collapsing around their ears.
Mr Adams raised a fundamental point when he said that the First Minister and his party were exercising some sort of veto over the progress of government. To some extent that is true, but why is it true? It is true because while this is a unique form of government, it is not a unique form of government in the process of evolution. It is in fact a form of government which, like the mule, has no pride of ancestry and, if the pan-Nationalist front has its way, has no hope of posterity.
Nationalists, and particularly Sinn Féin, have made it clear that they see this Government, which is to deliver the programme, as nothing more than a transitional mechanism to enable them to obtain their final objective of a united Ireland. If one looks at the fundamentals of the Government which is to deliver this programme, that fact is self-evident.
We have here a unique form of government — some might describe it as a political Caliban — and what does it do? It creates the very differences which Mr Adams has underlined. In a normal democracy, a Government which achieves a majority then delivers its manifesto. There is collective responsibility within its Executive, which is chaired by the Leader of that Government. No such thing exists here. We have strange tensions given the First Minister’s obligation to his party and to the manifesto upon which members of his party were elected to this Chamber. That manifesto made reference to the equality agenda, the RUC, decommissioning and the representation in Government of representatives of a party which the Prime Minister has described as inextricably linked to one of the most sophisticated and deadly terrorist organisations in Europe, which is determined to remain armed.
These tensions, divisions and objectives will inevitably prevent this Government from ever having any viable future, except a future as a temporary and transitional arrangement to achieve the objectives of those who wish ultimately to destroy it.
If there are any queries about this analysis, simply look at the construction of this Government. Under the d’Hondt system, there is not one but a selection of parties, each with its own objectives and political imperatives, and Ministers run their Departments as independent fiefdoms. Like Chinese warlords, they advance only their own interests. If this Executive should prove totally incompetent and have a disastrous period of office, and if there is another election under the d’Hondt principle, broadly the same parties will be re-elected in similar numbers.
They will appoint their own Ministers from within their own parties. There will be no criteria by which to judge whether these Ministers or the policies of these parties have delivered good government in social, economic or constitutional terms. There will simply be the same again, because the Assembly, in its design and purpose, was never intended to be permanent. Its institutions do not create the circumstances in which permanent, practical and real evolution can occur. It is simply a Mexican stand-off incorporated in a form of government.
The scant merits of this Programme for Government are long on aspiration, noble language and what the press describe as the "vision thing". However, they are very short on elements which address the fundamental problem of what sort of Government there will be to deliver this programme.

Mr Billy Bell: I welcome the Executive’s Programme for Government, which provides a way for the people of Northern Ireland to prosper in a spirit of co-operation and mutual respect. At this stage, I have to admit, the programme can be little more than an outline for government. It provides the bare bones for future development, and it will need to be fleshed out by each Department. A positive start has been made, and this must be applauded.
In ‘Making a Difference’, the Executive commits itself to good government and to the fostering of debate, co-operation and government in an open, efficient and accountable manner. I concur with this, and I will suggest a base on which this pledge can be secured. As a former Belfast councillor and as a long-standing councillor in Lisburn, I can contribute to what I hope will be an ongoing debate on this matter. In 1972, the Parliament of Northern Ireland passed legislation to reform local government. The present system of 26 councils came into operation in 1973 and has remained virtually intact ever since.
Councils have obtained extra powers in areas such as tourism and economic development. However, while the system is meant to be complementary to this regional Parliament at Stormont, it has, in effect, operated in the vacuum of direct rule. As a result, councillors have had the semblance of power without the substance. Too often, they are the scapegoats in a system over which they have little control. For example, when dealing with planning issues, a contentious matter in Northern Ireland, councillors must be careful not to overstep the mark between consultation and decision-making. They also have to be careful not to give the impression that they have influence where they have none.
In cases of road problems, constituents often blame councils rather than the Roads Service, which has the ultimate power. Decision-making systems must be examined in their entirety. The number of quangos has risen over the years with the result that virtually all areas of public life are populated by those described as "the great and the good", few of whom have ever presented themselves to the electorate. I have represented my council on various bodies. At least I can claim some democratic credentials for doing so. At one time there was council representation on health boards, but the previous Government removed these elected representatives. Now the virtually toothless health councils are all that is left for councils to deal with.
I am not attacking the quality of work that has been carried out by quangos — far from it. Many members give up valuable time to public service, but public accountability must be a priority, and the whole area of local government, boards, trusts and the other bodies must be examined. Members may agree when I contend that 26 councils are excessive for an area of the size of Northern Ireland — by the same token, the number of councillors must also be considered if the local government system is scaled down.
We should also examine the optimum number of health and education boards and consider whether 19 health trusts provide too much duplication for a population of 1·6 million. Can we economise?
In the area of economic development, the operation of both the IDB and LEDU must lead to overlaps and confusion. We should consider establishing a single body to seek out and maintain jobs and to work in close conjunction with relevant Ministers.
I am a member of the National Association of Councillors. Every party in this room is represented there; they all agree that there should be a review, and I too support that aim.

Mr Arthur Doherty: We are a small part of a small island. Our island is a small part of a small island group. To our left is a huge mass of water stretching from continent to continent and from pole to pole. To our right is a huge land mass; two continents reaching half way across the world. In global terms we are very small, but we are not insignificant. Our horizons are as wide as anyone else’s. Our skies are as high and reach as far. So while we are small we must not think small: we must think big; we must think globally.
That is one reason for the Programme for Government’s being so important. That is why those who say that the programme should concentrate on our internal affairs are so wrong. They want to have as little as possible to do with our neighbours on this island, in Europe and the world. It is not enough for us simply to put our house in order.
We have all seen the distressing pictures of hundreds of proud home owners who have put their lovely houses in perfect order only to see them destroyed by nature out of control. Anything that might have been done to prevent or minimise flooding would have involved forethought and action, not just at local or national level, but even on an international scale.
It is right then that the Programme for Government should take account of the need for north, south, east, west and international co-operation at many levels, not least with regard to environmental and sustainable development issues. Our seas and many of our waterways and beaches are polluted. Our fish stocks are dwindling. Animal disease and genetic modification of crops pose serious threats to public health as well as adding to the grave difficulties facing our farmers. The rich diversity of our animal and plant life is under continuous threat from dodgy development plans, from dodgy agricultural and gardening practices and from littering, ignorance and vandalism. We pump millions of tonnes of chemical pollutants into the air from our cars and vans or lorries and buses, from our mopeds, from coal fires and central heating and from our factories and power stations — even our cows and our sheep are guilty of gaseous pollution. When meteorological turmoil occurs in our atmosphere we do not know what to do, since our brains have been cooked by mobile phones and high-tension power lines.
And there is more: we create piles of waste, mountains of waste, Himalayas of waste. Irresponsible people tip waste over fences or bridges. Good citizens fill their wheelie bins to overflowing. Waste is buried in holes in the ground, sending clouds of methane into the atmosphere and poisonous leachate into our water systems. We talk about waste minimisation, waste reuse, recycling, energy recovery and zero waste. What great ideas — let us get started.
These are just a few of the issues that the Programme for Government must tackle. I have not touched on the topic of sustainable development, which is at the very heart of every aspect of the programme. I do not have time to discuss costs, but we need all the help we can get from the United Kingdom, from the Republic, from Europe, from wherever.
I finish by quoting from the Programme for Government:
"In the Agreement, unique structures were established within the Island of Ireland, within the United Kingdom, and East/West to provide a new basis for relationships."
We must use those relationships, that new co-operation, to save our beautiful country for our children and our visitors, who are enchanted by it, and in our own small way do what we can to save our planet.

Mr Jim Shannon: I would like to speak on paragraph 1.9 in the draft Programme for Government, which covers the rural economy.
There should be a real emphasis and focus on the farming community and also on our beleaguered fishing industry. Prices for finished products continue to fall; fuel prices continue to rise; more and more farmers and fishermen have gone to the wall; and their jobs are in jeopardy. Recent statistics have shown that the number of suicides in the farming community is rising. These figures are very worrying and represent a catalogue of misery, broken families and despair.
In the Programme for Government there has been an increase in the budget for agriculture and rural development, but where is the money going? Is it going towards administration, or is it going to the farming sector? The budget allocation for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister constitutes some £29 million, while the figure to run the Assembly is £39 million. Has lottery fever struck the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister? How can they justify those costs given the costs for the Assembly? Perhaps they see this as their roll-over year. Some of that funding would be better allocated to the agriculture and fishing sectors. It would be better spent, more appreciated and much more productive. We know that the farming sector is the largest employer in Northern Ireland, making up some 10% of the workforce. We also know how much is owed to the banks and about falling incomes.
In the rural economy section, the Programme for Government could have addressed the desperate need for childcare facilities, which are scarce in rural areas. Even if they do exist, the cost is prohibitive, as many farmers and their workers earn the equivalent of part- time wages.
There are structural changes to the agriculture budget, which means less money for farming families. However, the increase in rural development money should be targeted towards farming families.
12.00
More and more people are moving to the countryside — people who do not depend on farming for their livelihood or to survive, but we need to focus on farming families. The slow but steady downturn in profitability has resulted in full-time farmers being on part-time wages and seeking alternative employment. How will the Programme for Government help with retraining, and how will help be made available to the farming sector directly? Can the Minister indicate what proportion of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s budget of £191million will go straight to the farmers instead of to administration? Does anyone feel that the Programme for Government will deliver a viable future for farmers? Many farmers do not agree, and their futures are bleak.
Paragraph 1.8 refers to a better environment. How will the environmental scheme work? It is already underfunded, so what tangible benefits does the Minister see coming from it if it is not funded adequately? If this remains the case, it will fall at the first fence.
Paragraph 1.9 refers to the creation of new skills and new job opportunities. While there is a great opportunity for job creation in the agri-food industry, further processing offers no such possibilities. Vegetables, beef, lamb or fish cannot be processed, for the money and assistance are currently not available. Potential processors will have to wait until next year or the year after before their applications can be processed. There is a plethora of golden job opportunities that could create prosperity and breathe life into the rural community. A vibrant agriculture industry is possible, but a vision is needed from within the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Is there that vision and the commitment to realise it? If the programme does not focus on the farming families and the job opportunities within further processing, it will have failed miserably.

Mr Speaker: Members are raising relatively detailed issues relating to particular Departments. Almost all the Ministers will respond at some stage, but when a Member raises points of detail — for example, as Mr Shannon has done on agriculture — it is not reasonable to expect the Minister responding at the end of this particular section to cover that. He will have substantial difficulties covering all the matters that have been raised in any case. The Minister of Agriculture should be speaking later in the day and may be able to respond, as may other Ministers. This does not apply only to Mr Shannon but to a number of Members. The various Ministers will speak at different times. If a Minister has spoken and a Member raises a question in his bailiwick after he has spoken, that Minister will be able to respond to that only in writing. If the matter is raised earlier in the debate before the Minister has spoken, he may be able to pick it up later in the day.

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Finance and Personnel Committee discussed the Programme for Government but could not agree on how to respond. All parties will want to respond, and we will do so today. I want to touch on some of the issues that came up in the Committee. I welcome the opportunity for this discussion of the so-called Programme for Government, and I hope that partnership, equality and accountability will become a reality.
It is a pity that the discussion did not take place before the document was published. The cloud of secrecy which hung over the Executive discussions does not auger well for inclusivity. Can this be a Programme for Government when we are not a Government, when we do not control our finances and when we are dependent on the British Exchequer for resources and for the workings of the Barnett formula? However, I welcome the statement that the Executive will press for a fair allocation of resources. The other sort of finance is the regional rate.
Let me deal with the Barnett formula. It is flawed, and, as stated in the Programme for Government, it does not address our needs. It cannot address our needs, because Barnett does not target need; it is a headcount that regulates the difference between areas. What has been done so far to press for a fair allocation? What has been the British Government’s response? What is proposed for the future to ensure that we get a fair allocation? What was the percentage rise allocated under the Barnett formula from the block grant? The Barnett formula discriminates quite clearly against the North. Less is allocated for health here than is allocated in England, Scotland or Wales. Less is spent on education here, and particularly on school buildings. Approximately one third of what is spent on sport and leisure facilities in England is spent here. We are clearly not being given a fair or equal share of the allocation.
Barnett does not target need, but we must target need if the Programme for Government is to mean anything for the people we represent. In the Programme for Government and the Budget, the Executive have gone for the easy option — to add 8% to the rates. We were told that the Assembly would not have tax-raising powers, but it has increased the regional rate for domestic property by 8% and by 6·6% for non-domestic property such as small shops and businesses, which are already suffering. These increases are based on a valuation made five years ago, and they certainly do not represent an easy option for those people involved.
If it is a tax, then we should call it a tax. If the regional rate is to finance the Budget and the Programme for Government, we should call it the Assembly Tax and collect it as such. Any rise should be in line with inflation — approximately 3%. Where did the figure of 8% come from? Is there a balance sheet to show that 8% is needed to match up with what is already allocated under the block grant? The rates are a very unfair method of taxation. Those who do not have access to services — hospitals, roads and infrastructure — pay the same as those who do.
The rates hit all households but not individuals. The issue will further divide families and create problems with housing benefit, et cetera. Those living west of the Bann will pay the same as those living in other areas and those who have services such as hospitals, schools and infrastructure. The M1 stops at Dungannon, and the M2 stops beyond Antrim. The 6% rise for shops, offices and businesses takes no account of the suffering of town centres over recent years from the effects of out-of-town developments. It is based on a valuation made five years ago, and it is an unfair system of taxation.
We rightly criticised NIE last week for a 9% rise in electricity charges. We criticised the fuel rise, yet now we are saying that there must be an 8% rise on rates. The Assembly should reject this rise in rates, just as we said that the electricity charge increase announced last week was unacceptable.
If the Programme for Government is to mean anything to people, it must redress the imbalances of the past. It must redress the 80 years of neglect west of the Bann and reverse the discrimination of the past. What other sources of finance were sought? Were the British Government asked to use the war chest and the peace dividend to redress the imbalance? Was the issue of the Celtic tiger addressed with the Irish Government? When are the Irish Government going to ensure that the Celtic tiger covers the 32 counties of Ireland? As far as European funding is concerned, will there be matching funding available and will additionality be ensured? The Civil Service statement talks about —

Mr Speaker: The Member’s time is up.

Ms Carmel Hanna: I welcome the opportunity to speak about the Programme for Government. I want to focus on the environmental aspects and, more specifically, on sustainability, which has been referred to several times today and which is referred to several times in the Programme for Government.
Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of current generations without compromising the capability of future generations to meet their needs. We should all strive to achieve this goal, and it is much more than an environmental agenda. We must consider the long-term implications of our decisions and give equal weight to the environmental, social and economic dimensions of development. That aspiration should become a reality. Sustainability must be a key theme of the whole Programme for Government.
There should be clear recognition of the importance of protecting our built heritage. This important element is a cornerstone of sustainability. I refer to chapter2 on the tackling of poverty and renewal of disadvantaged neighbourhoods. The preservation of our heritage is not just about the aesthetic. It is also about needs, especially the need for safe and healthy housing and a healthy environment. If we can meet these needs through the restoration of historic buildings and the rehabilitation of existing buildings, we will have a more sustainable and attractive environment.
We should encourage the flexible take-up of improvement and repair grants. We should encourage urban regeneration through rehabilitation rather than redevelopment. To avoid disposal, we should train more plumbers, electricians, joiners and other tradesmen. We should encourage a sense of pride and the restoration of historic buildings by promoting an awareness of local history. The attractiveness of our country to visitors, tourists or workers, depends on the retention and promotion of our heritage as well as clean air, clean water and good infrastructure.
We should promote the concept of third-party planning appeals. That would increase the power of people to influence decisions on their local environment. The elimination of the planning backlog should not be achieved at the expense of sound planning decisions. We must encourage general environmental awareness.
With regard to chapter 3 of the programme, ‘Working for a Healthier People’, we could reduce air pollution by encouraging greater use of public transport and ensuring fast and regular bus and train services. We should also develop more pedestrian and cycle routes.
If such points were addressed, we would truly see sustainability in action. I am glad to have an opportunity to focus on sustainability. It is a live environmental issue that connects the generations, giving us all a greater sense of ourselves and our environment. Despite our political differences, every Member of this House wants to protect and cherish our environment.

Mr Edwin Poots: I wish to address section 1.3 of the Programme, ‘A Cohesive, Inclusive and Just Society’. It discusses the new targeting social need policy. We should consider that policy: members of the public often refer to it as "targeting sectarian need". We must ensure that the targeting social need programme reaches across the entire community and does not reach only to specific areas of the community. We should recognise that there are severe problems in many Unionist as well as Nationalist parts of the community. We should look in particular at the Shankill Road. The terms of the new targeting social need policy, especially in relation to long-term unemployment, would rule parts of that area out.
I would like to see the appointment of a children’s commissioner. Many children are living in abject poverty, and many are brought up in situations that many of us could not comprehend. It is sad that children are brought up in such circumstances.
Chapter 2 refers to the employment of Roman Catholics in the senior Civil Service. I have no objections to the Executive’s examining that issue, but it should look at the entire Civil Service. In the lower ranks, the Protestant community is under-represented. In a few years’ time, we will have the same problem with the senior Civil Service, as Protestant civil servants will not have come up through the ranks. Therefore, there should be an examination of the Civil Service as a whole, as opposed to its senior ranks alone.
Chapter 6 of the programme sets out the aspirations of the Executive regarding relations with north America and Europe. I do not think that the funds that have been set aside make those aspirations feasible. As regards Northern Ireland’s international image, the document talks about the development of
"a marketing strategy to promote awareness of our cultural treasures and recreational facilities".
One of our cultural treasures is the celebration of the Twelfth of July. It is enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people every year and is one of the most colourful events in the Province. The Government should examine the promotion of the Twelfth of July as a tourist attraction, with a view to undermining those who seek to destroy what is good in the Province.
Chapter 7 talks about setting targets, monitoring development and progress towards electronic service delivery. Once again, what is set out in the Programme for Government fails to match up with what is in the Budget. An application for £15·9 million was not successful. No money has been allocated for electronic government, and there will clearly be problems in meeting the targets set unless the finance is made available.
Will we be introducing our own freedom-of- information legislation, or is it the Executive’s intention to adopt the Westminster legislation for a period, afterwards seeking to amend it?
I should like to see a clear definition of Executive and Northern Ireland Office responsibilities on the issue of victims. On too many occasions Members of this House, and victims themselves, have sought answers, only to be sent from one Department to another. We need clear definitions of the responsibilities of each Department. The issue of capacity-building, to which the document refers, must be looked at, for it has been used as a means of discriminating against certain victims’ groups that do not happen to be in favour with the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
Those are only a few of the issues I wish to tackle. I welcome the proposal to introduce free public transport for senior citizens.

Mr Gerry Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. David Trimble opened his speech this morning by saying his objective was a new beginning. He listed Protestants, Catholics, Unionists, Republicans, Nationalists and Loyalists and other groups in society, saying that they were what the draft Programme for Government was about.
I should have liked to talk in particular about chapter 7 and the partnerships involved between the institutions — all the institutions — in the community, including the Assembly. Community leaders are an essential part of this and must be equal partners in moving the process forward. I should have liked to discuss devising ways of dealing directly with the community sector, methods and mechanisms for going into the community. Some of that is already happening.
As a member of the Social Development Committee, I should also have liked to talk about the substantial shortfall in the budget for that Department. A substantial portion of the blame for that shortfall lies with the two successive DUP Ministers who failed to go to the Executive and argue vociferously for the Department.
Unfortunately, the two most important documents, which in my opinion go beyond the draft Programme for Government that the Assembly has received, are those sent to members of the Ulster Unionist Council detailing the proposals put to it on 28 October. Both of these were penned by the First Minister, and therein lies the great difficulty. The first might be described as a statement of intent to collapse the Executive on the part of the First Minister, while the second details a method of collapse. In the first, he argues that Mr Jeffrey Donaldson’s proposal was an exit strategy without a re-entry strategy. I shall quote one short section:
"The response is intended to increase pressure progressively on Republicans and Nationalists. This might result in a crisis for the Assembly and Executive. But if that arises we must do all that we can to put responsibility on republicans."
This is about crisis and suspension and putting the blame on Republicans. We must remember that all these institutions are entwined, so that if one falls, they all fall. In his own proposal, after saying that he will not nominate Sinn Féin Ministers for North/South Ministerial Council meetings, the First Minister goes on to put demands on almost every other party to the Good Friday Agreement.
He demands that the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD) be proactive in fulfilling its mandate; he demands monthly reports, sets deadlines and prescribes timetables. He warns that if either of the two Governments, or any other party, interferes with this, he will progressively terminate meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council and the British- Irish Council. He then demands that the Government convene a formal review and put a moratorium on policing. After setting us all these tasks he is going to set up another Ulster Unionist Party meeting in January to decide whether we have all performed well. Somewhere he has said that he has had twenty-one meetings of the Ulster Unionist Council.
I read the draft Programme for Government. I have criticisms of its being aspirational — many people have spoke of its being definitively too aspirational — and sustainability is a recurring problem. There is a substantial difference between the programme and the Budget, which is to be discussed tomorrow. This whole debate is aspirational: the sustainability of the Assembly and the other institutions is under scrutiny, because David Trimble is involved in their collapse. That is what we need to rectify and what David Trimble needs to rectify.

Mr Mark Durkan: Given the number of points raised and the fact that I have only five minutes in which to speak, I am not going to be able to cover everything. Several issues recurred in Members’ comments, and I want to deal with  some of them.
First, we had criticisms that this is too aspirational, too visionary. Others seemed to imply that there was not enough vision, that the document was too prosaic. The fact is that in embarking on this Programme for Government, the Executive has tried to come up with the right balance between a clear vision — where we want to take this society under these new institutions — and a real sense of mission, in other words how we will use the responsibilities and resources that fall to us as a regional Administration. Clearly our resources are not as we would want them to be, and, in many cases, our responsibilities are not as complete as we would want them to be. Nevertheless, we have to meet those responsibilities and manage resources. That is what we have tried to do, in a planned way, in the proposals we have brought forward in the Programme for Government and the draft Budget as well.
The whole Executive Committee agreed this Programme for Government. They also agreed that the draft Budget for the next financial year was consistent with it and would help to enable the aims of the programme to be discharged. This is a draft Programme for Government, and tomorrow we will be discussing a draft Budget. This programme is a multiannual prospectus; the Budget proposals that have been tabled to date relate only to the next financial year.
Some Members indicated that they would have preferred more detail about public service agreements, et cetera. More detail would be welcome, and it will be forthcoming. However, if the Executive had waited until it had the detailed public service agreements worked out for every Department, for every area of spend, and had then presented a draft programme in those terms, people would have said "No, you should have presented a more general draft. We would then have decided on the priorities and principles from which the public service agreements should flow." Members cannot have it both ways — wanting us to consult and then criticising us because we have produced a document that is clearly for consultation. This is here for further elaboration, for further work and for development. The Assembly will have the detailed public service agreements in a consolidated Programme for Government in January, to be decided in February.
The Assembly and its Committees have the opportunity to follow through on many important detailed points that concern Members today. Points were raised in relation to several areas. Environment seemed to get most attention in this session as regards sustainable development and how we understand that concept. Consistent with the Programme for Government, the Minister of the Environment, Mr Foster, will bring forward more details to ensure that sustainable development receives the sort of comprehensive, joined-up approach required, as it affects all aspects of public policy and public management.
Members have asked for detail on certain points. The Departments will provide that detail as they develop, in consultation with the relevant departmental Committees, the detailed actions and targets necessary to bring forward informed and articulate public service agreements. Those points will be brought forward in due time, whether they relate to housing, education or water and sewerage.
It would have been impossible for us to have a Programme for Government that details every single item currently being undertaken, because people would say it was simply an inventory of all current activities and, therefore, would lack the sort of vision that people here have rightly been asking for.
In this Programme for Government we have tried to set out an agenda for change and improvement across the range of Government Departments. The programme emphasises many new activities and new actions, and to that extent, it understates a huge volume of work that has already been undertaken by Departments.

Mr Speaker: We now move to the second section, beginning with chapters 2 and 3 of the Programme for Government.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: As the First Minister explained at the opening of this debate, the Executive Committee agreed that two of the key challenges we face are the need to build a cohesive, creative, inclusive and just society and the need to improve the health of the population. These major issues require all the Departments to work together, and we hope the following session will provide an opportunity for a full debate.
First, I want to focus on the theme we explore in our priority area: growing as a community. We can create confidence in our different communities only if we are confident in our rights and responsibilities. We can achieve it only if we can create security from poverty for individuals and security from disadvantage for communities. That confidence is essential if we are to tackle the real divisions in our society and tap into our latent creativity.
Our approach, therefore, will not only focus on promoting equality in human rights. We will link that to tackling poverty and social disadvantage, the renewal of disadvantaged neighbourhoods and the sustaining of local communities and their organisations. We will marry this to improving community relations and the breaking down of the deep divisions in society. The danger is that we can easily produce fine-sounding rhetoric, but these are extremely stubborn problems, and we have to be realistic about what can be achieved and the timescale in which that will be done.
Nevertheless, we are a new devolved Administration. We are the locally elected representatives of the people, and we know what the problems are. We appreciate that people are our only natural resource. We know what different groups need, and we know what can be done.
Moving on to the details of the priority, our first focus is on ensuring the effective promotion of equality in human rights. Key to this will be the development of a number of important cross-cutting approaches such as developing and implementing new policies on gender and inequalities. By April 2001, we will consult on a single equality Bill to be introduced in 2002, and by the end of 2002, we will complete an evaluation of the targeting social need policy, enabling us to see how this works.
We will tackle the major issues of participation and accessibility. We will also address the needs of the disabled and assure equality of treatment for all.
The victims of past violence are very important. We are all agreed that their needs must get special attention. Our aim, in meeting victims’ needs, is to help healing and assist individuals affected to gain confidence. By April 2001, we will have put in place a cross-departmental strategy to ensure that the needs of victims are met by the different services that we provide.
I want to talk about the socially excluded and those facing poverty, particularly children who are blighted by its impact. We will use instruments such as the ONE initiative, involving the Department for Social Development, the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment and other Government agencies, to provide joined-up welfare and employment services to help families re-enter the labour market.
The Executive will bring forward proposals to introduce free travel on public transport for older people. We will also help households suffering from fuel poverty by introducing a new energy efficiency scheme.
Social housing is also an important matter. Present housing policy will be developed and will ensure that existing housing is adapted in the best way to suit those with special needs, such as the disabled. Problems of disadvantage and social exclusion are often found in distinct geographic pockets in our community. We will therefore work, not only on neighbourhood regeneration task groups, but also in rural districts where we will seek to use rural development activity to focus on particular areas.
We want to enhance local communities by strengthening areas where community infrastructure is weak and by encouraging people to take an active role in their neighbourhood’s regeneration. This will include areas such as arts, culture and libraries, sports activities and housing, which can all play a vital role in helping to instil confidence throughout our society as well as enhancing community relations.
A related issue must be the celebration of cultural and linguistic diversity. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure will play a major role in this. My Department will ensure that all communities can feel confident in their own culture and language. We can benefit from and take pride in the richness of our diversity, rather than see it as a problem. In so doing, we can promote a positive image of Northern Ireland.
A second priority area is ‘Working for a Healthier People’. During this session, we have linked this priority to that of ‘Growing as a Community’, because there are natural links. Deprivation and poverty have led to inequalities in the health of our population. Indeed, our health record compares unfavourably to that in many European regions.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have to intervene. The Minister’s time is up.

Mr Billy Armstrong: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the draft Programme for Government and specifically, to voice my views on ‘Working for a Healthier People’ from the rural perspective. Our rural community has been facing severe hardship in recent times, and there is a need to look to the future, form new strategies and plan a better tomorrow.
First, I welcome the realisation, as outlined in section 1.9 of the draft programme, that rural areas are important and that it is necessary to develop new skills and jobs. Our rural community must be considered in every aspect of future plans for Northern Ireland. Farmers and those living in rural areas must be sustained. The farming community is the backbone of the rural community. They are the custodians of the countryside, the environment, and a substantial part of our culture and heritage.
Rural areas make up a large proportion of Northern Ireland, and this must be taken into account. Northern Ireland has a surface area of 1·4 million hectares, which is approximately 3·5 million acres, and a population of 1·6 million. Rural districts account for 95% of Northern Ireland, and 700,000 people live in those areas — that is 43·6% of the total population. Over 359,000 people living in rural areas — that is over 50% — are classified as disadvantaged.
Secondly, section 2.4.2 of the programme states that the Government will "sustain and enhance local communities". I urge that the programme take into consideration the needs of farmers and those living in rural communities and, in particular, outline specific objectives to provide support in these times of great hardship.
Thirdly, under the heading ‘Working for a Healthier People’, I welcome the recognition that
"Everyone has the right to timely, quality care based on clinical and social need."
However, the programme should pay particular attention to those living in rural communities, the vast majority of whom should have equal priority and the same hospital services as received by people in urban areas. There should be adequate acute service provision in all areas of NorthernIreland.
I note that under section 4.3, all young people are to have the qualifications and skills needed to gain employment in a modern economy by March 2002. The proportion of the workforce in agriculture who hold vocational qualifications at NVQ level 3 or higher is to be increased to 9%. I also welcome section4.4, which outlines the aim to
"provide lifelong learning opportunities to enable people to update their knowledge, skills and qualifications."
This aim is equally applicable to rural communities since the agriculture industry is deteriorating and there is an increasing need to find alternative employment. These farmers must be supported as they look for new ideas and employment in different areas.
I am pleased to note in section5.1.3 the reference to the difficulties faced in rural areas as a result of falling incomes. What better way to modernise farming than to have a farm regeneration scheme to encourage onto our farms young people who are well trained in modern farming methods and skilled in business management? The Programme for Government should make a commitment to do just that. This is a clear vision of the future.
In conclusion, I welcome the recognition of the need to work together across Departments and agencies to tackle the fundamental problems of our society. In the same way, farmers must be remembered when examining all aspects of government.
It must be remembered that the future of the agriculture and the agri-food sectors has a direct relationship to the well-being of the rural economy. We must ensure that there is a high-quality environment with good-quality water and air. We must produce food in natural surroundings to create a healthier way of life, thus allowing us to market ourselves abroad as a centre of tourism and investment. Agriculture is the backbone of Northern Ireland, which promotes health and social development for our children.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: First, on behalf of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee, which has discussed the Programme for Government, I welcome the document and congratulate the Executive on what is a very detailed and constructive report. I particularly welcome the innovative approach of the Executive’s programme funds to assist the development of activities across Departments, particularly in relation to equality and targeting social need. We welcome the inclusion in the document of structured actions and actual dates for specific purposes and the fact that public service agreements are to be established with Departments to link achievement with agreed outcomes for public funding.
However, it is not clear if the programme funds have been set up in response to the underfunding of these policy areas in Northern Ireland and if, as a result, they will address issues of underfunding rather than be completely new departures. We hope to see more clarity on that issue in the report.
There are many references to joined-up Government, but there are no details of how, in practice, Departments will work towards mutual goals. These goals have been established on a short-term basis, for example, one to two years. The Committee believes that long-term objectives should also be looked at. We are concerned that the proposed date for completion of the strategy for the development of centres of curiosity and imagination is April 2002. Perhaps a scarcity exists, but it is a lengthy period of time.
The report has to be aspirational, but there are times when the aspiration becomes so great as to lose contact with reality. Speaking as an Assembly Member and not as Chairman of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee, I am concerned that the Programme for Government could become so aspirational as to lose touch with reality and leave Members in some difficulty. I refer particularly to something that was raised with the Minister for Social Development at the Social Development Committee last week. It is one example, though there are others. Paragraph 7.6 of the programme states
"In each of the years 2000/01, 2001/02, and 2002/03, we will reduce levels of Social Security fraud and error in Income Support, Job Seekers’ Allowance, Disability Living Allowance and Invalid Care Allowance by 5%".
That is a worthy aim, but there is no indication of how it can be realised. What do the Executive want the Assembly to support? If draconian measures were introduced to achieve those aims, many Members would raise their eyebrows in alarm and warning. There should be greater clarity about what is meant by assertions in the programme that are too aspirational.
I am also concerned that the provision of rural housing is not identified as an aim in the Programme for Government. As the Deputy Speaker can attest, it was a long and hard struggle to get rural housing on the agenda. Some of the other aims in the report may be seen as making reference to problems with rural housing, but I am concerned that the issue has lost its prominence. Will the Executive look at the issue again and consider whether there is not a need for it to be seen as a separate and important issue? Mr Gallagher spoke about the problems with grants, particularly for houses in Fermanagh that are unfit for habitation. Although Fermanagh is the worst-affected local government area, the problem concerns everyone who lives in a rural area. There is a great need for further work on that issue. I am concerned that it is not included in the report. The Executive should do something about it.

Mr Nigel Dodds: Members from all parts of the House have commented, rightly, on how aspirational the Programme for Government is and on how much of it deals with spin rather than substance. It is short on concrete actions and long on aspiration. It contains very little that is new. Much of it is a drawing together of proposals from various Departments that were already in the public domain. The parts of the programme that deal with how we tackle poverty and social disadvantage had already been laid before the Social Development Committee in July. Therefore there is nothing innovative in the document.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)
This morning, the First Minister lamented that there had been so little public comment and debate on the document, but I note, with interest, the comments made by the business community on the day after its publication. The business community was of the opinion that the plethora of aspirational statements in the document needed to be firmed up. That is the reaction of the business community — hardly inspiring.
The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have tried to inject some enthusiasm and energy into the matter, but that cannot be done because of the way in which the document is framed. We have heard that this is a wonderful milestone in the life of the Assembly and that, among other things, we have people working together in joined-up Government. Then, one of the parties that is supposed to be in the Government attacked the First Minister.
We have heard reports that the Health Minister refused to go the joint ministerial council, that the First Minister banned another party from going to North/South meetings, that legal action has been threatened and that there have been rows. That is a wonderful example of joined-up Government and a wonderful example of how the new Executive works harmoniously together, or so we were told when the document was launched a few weeks ago.
At the document’s launch MrMallon said that it would be business as usual for the future. He was proved wrong within a week. MrTrimble had not even bothered to tell him of his plans. We have the sort of joined-up Government where the FirstMinister does not even tell the Deputy First Minister, never mind the other parties on the Executive, what he plans to do.
Nothing in the document deals with the core problem that at the heart of the Government, and corrupting that Government, we have parties that hold on to terrorist arms and ammunition. SinnFéin has indicated that it is not going to give up any arms or ammunition. That is the central issue that needs to be addressed. The document is full of the North/South, all-Ireland, dimension, and that was raised at the time. We pointed out that expenditure on the North/South bodies is about £17million and not £11million, as the First Minister said. He will have to apologise once again for misleading the House, and I hope that he will take the opportunity to do that as quickly as possible. That money could be better spent. For every £1million spent on implementing the all-Ireland dimension of the agreement, we could have 200more heart operations, we could adapt 1,000 more homes for the disabled, and so on.
When we deal with the Budget tomorrow we will go into that in more detail. While there is a reference to the review of public administration in NorthernIreland, no Minister has yet given details of the review, what it will mean and how long it will take. We have heard statements outside the House, but the Minister has refused to come to the House to tell us what is happening. I would like to address more issues, but that will not be possible in the time that is available. One Member attacked the DUP for its stance on the agreement. I find it very sad to hear a Member such as MrCWilson, who is supposed to be in the anti-agreement camp, doing all he can to assist MrTrimble and the Ulster Unionist Party. I sometimes wonder who puts him up to it and why he continues to attack those of us who have the people’s support on our anti-agreement stance.
I congratulate the Minister for Social Development on many of the issues that have been included in the Programme for Government, and I look forward to the introduction of free travel on public transport for older people. I hope that that will be implemented as quickly as possible in keeping with DUP manifesto commitments.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: A LeasCheann Comhairle, I welcome our first attempt at a Programme for Government. Given that this is the first time in generations that locally elected representatives have had an opportunity to make an impact on the day-to-day running of the Six Counties and that the past few years have been a steep learning curve for all, it is not surprising that this document is not without fault. As Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development, I will concentrate my remarks on chapter 2 ‘Growing as a Community’. It focuses on poverty and social inclusion, community regeneration and the enhancement of our voluntary and community sector.
Previous attempts at government have failed, but it is imperative for the people of this statelet and for all sections of the community, urban or rural, young or old, Catholic or Protestant, that we do not fail this time. In recognising the failures of the past, we must address what needs to be done to ensure that we do not make the same mistakes again. We should draw on the experiences of the international community, particularly Europe, and learn from other communities that are coming out of conflict. We must be radical, imaginative and decisive. We have to direct resources to the areas of greatest need in order to achieve measurable results, and we must make regeneration work. Above all, we have to ensure that people see tangible benefits from what we are doing and address issues of critical importance in a way that empowers our communities and eradicates poverty for good.
Therefore it is essential that this is a template for good effective governance. Words like "inclusive", "cohesive", "effective", "transparency", "just", "equal", "accessible" and "consistent" are dotted throughout this chapter.
However, we must guarantee that those sentiments are not merely aspirational but real targets for the next 12months. In order to achieve this we must ask ourselves some challenging questions. For example, given that we have had community regeneration initiatives since the 1980s, why are many of our towns and huge parts of our cities still run down and derelict? Have projects like Making Belfast Work delivered real and tangible benefits to all of the community, or are some areas attracting vast sums of money while others remain neglected and impoverished? Has EU funding really been additional, or has it systematically been used in place of British Exchequer funding? Money, ring-fenced for community projects that will prioritise tackling discrimination and poverty, should not be wasted or redirected into other areas.
We must all strive to achieve the promotion of equality and human rights. Without our fundamental rights we cannot make progress on any of our policies. Therefore I am glad to see plans on how we do this early in the programme. If we achieve all of the targets set out in section2.2 we will have achieved a great deal and will have started to move away from the inequalities of the past.
The promotion of human rights and equality must be the key priority of this Assembly. Further, it is time for Unionism to accept that institutionalised discrimination has been practised here for the past 80years. In this building, the founding fathers of Ulster Unionism preached and practised discrimination as a tool of political manipulation and control. Discrimination and disadvantage did, and does, exist.
Paragraph 2.3.2. says
"We will work to provide high quality affordable social housing for those on low incomes"
I was disappointed to see no mention of tackling rural unfitness. My constituency, Fermanagh and South Tyrone, contains the highest levels of unfit rural housing on these islands, yet this has been omitted completely. In order to achieve what we set out to do in terms of replacement programmes and disabled adaptations, we are going to have to fund the Housing Executive adequately. I am sure every elected representative here has been frustrated at some point about the lack of resources to get things done or the speed at which work gets carried out. I would also agree with GerryKelly that if MauriceMorrow had fought his corner in the Executive, I do not believe the Housing Executive would have suffered from budget restraints in the way it has.
I would also like to have a point clarified. Paragraph 2.4.2 aspires to
"develop the necessary community infrastructure in the most disadvantaged areas and where it is weakest, encouraging people to take responsibility in and for their own communities."
Are we going to prioritise areas with the weakest community infrastructure or those most disadvantaged? These mean very different things.
How committed are we really to the community and voluntary sector when it has received a pittance from mainstream funding, when the actions in the Programme for Government do not include details of how this ambitious section is going to be achieved and when this year’s Budget proposals do not seem to take any of this into account?
The Programme for Government sets out our stall for a better future and is the first step in creating a better society for all. However, it needs to be clear not just on its objectives but in how they are to be achieved. That means that we have to fund the targets set out and make them achievable. If that involves asking the Dublin Government to provide additional funding, that is what we must do. Given that we do not receive enough from the British Exchequer and that we have not seen any money coming from savings made from the British war machine, we have to be imaginative about how to fund our priorities in order to achieve these aspirations. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: The words "cohesion", "inclusion" and "justice" underpin the implementation of all Government policies and programmes. These are laudable sentiments and can only be welcomed. However, after reading the document I am sad to say that I am disappointed. I want a cohesive, inclusive and just society, but I am afraid this Programme for Government does not deliver. It falls far short, leaving too many things unsaid and too many problems unsolved.
I am heartened by today’s developments in the Assembly. I presume that since only Minister McGimpsey and Minister deBrún are speaking, they will also be speaking for their Colleagues in other Departments. It is indeed reassuring that the Executive is so cohesive and so inclusive that the Minister of Health can speak on behalf of the present Minister for Social Development.
The Alliance Party, without the help of the Economic Unit special advisers and a building filled with civil servants, has already put forward its own Programme for Government and has even managed to deliver it before the Executive. We agree with the Government on some points. We too call for a consolidated Equality Act and for the application and monitoring of equality schemes, but even here the Executive’s plans fall short. We want the fair employment categories widened to apply to all of our increasingly diverse society, but the Programme for Government makes no mention of this.
We want the existing legislation applied to tackle the problems of graffiti, illegal flags and paramilitary murals that pollute our public places and intimidate the average person in Northern Ireland and visitors too, but the Programme for Government makes no mention of this either.
We would like to see the Assembly’s taking the lead in ensuring equality in its workforce through the use of innovative programmes such as flexible working, job- sharing, childcare provision and disability access. As an elected representative I think that part of my duty to the electorate is to lead by example, and this Assembly affords us an opportunity to do so, but the Executive ignore this, and there is no mention of it in its document.
I very much welcome the commitment to providing free travel for older persons. Members will know of my concern and interest in all areas affecting the elderly. The Alliance Party has advocated this policy for some time now; we feel this is necessary in order to build the inclusive society that we desire. We believe that this commitment is so important that it should have been specified that the Assembly fund this travel — not the councils by using rates. Alliance does not want to pass on the responsibility for this programme to overstretched councils which are already juggling many resource demands. However, I do not find this commitment in the document.
We have also called for the establishment of a public health strategy, as does the Programme for Government. We have called for all policies and legislation to be audited for their impact on people’s health.
Of course I cannot speak on health matters without spending a few moments talking about hospital closures and, indeed, condemning last week’s scandalous inability of the Ulster Hospital, due to a lack of finance, to provide a bed for a seriously burnt patient from Bangor. I say "Shame on the Department and its Minister". I see that she is here today, and I hope she will take immediate action to ensure that this will not happen again.
Alliance advocates the innovative use of local hospitals by allowing them to develop into different areas of expertise. In this way more closures and bed shortages would be avoided while allowing for the concentration of specialities and a more efficient use of resources. It is hoped that this is the kind of policy the Executive will pursue, although no mention is made of it in the Programme for Government.
I welcome many of the proposals, aims and actions in this document. However, I believe that they fall crucially short of providing for an inclusive society. We in the Alliance Party want to see the Assembly promoting sharing over separation and leading by example.

Dr Joe Hendron: Health has been defined as being a state of complete physical and mental well-being and not merely the absence of disease. It is a fact that the health of Northern Ireland’s population, is, in general, not as good as that of other similar countries in western Europe. There must be major improvements in people’s health, especially in the case of our children and young people, since our future rests on their development. We need to ensure that our policies and programmes take account of their needs.
There has been concern in recent years over the quality of provision of children’s residential care services in Northern Ireland. The Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee, as part of its scrutinising role, has conducted an inquiry on residential and secure accommodation for children here, and we hope to present the report of that inquiry to the Assembly before Christmas.
Too many of our children are living in poverty. As stated in the Programme for Government, we acknowledge the close relationship between family poverty and higher infant mortality, between poor general health and an increased risk of social problems. When a child is born its IQ (intelligence quotient) is partly due to genetic factors but, as it gets older, intelligence is also due to environmental factors. So it is not just a question of being born bright or stupid; a child’s development is also affected by its environment. Therefore a school-aged child from an underprivileged area or from a family living in relative poverty is at a gross disadvantage compared to other children in the community, especially with regard to education and health. That point has been proven over and over again and is supported by examination results in some areas. Of course we pay tribute to the people who are teaching them, but young people from poor backgrounds are at a gross disadvantage. They encounter higher levels of unemployment, and what jobs they do get seem to be the lesser types of jobs. In areas like that, young people are also more likely to smoke.
The problem of inequality in health must be tackled. Diet also affects lifestyle, and this is a factor that many of us try to teach our children. Hamburgers and fast food are particularly dangerous. Members may remember the experiment in Vietnam on thousands of young Americans aged between 18 and 20, whose post mortem examinations showed that most of these men were found to have atheroma. In other words, the hardening of their arteries started during their childhood.
Mr McCarthy spoke about the elderly. The recent findings of the Royal Commission on the elderly should be implemented. That is a massive debate on its own.
I shall move on to the issue of young people with learning difficulties. Much has been said about Muckamore. I am sure the Assembly supports the Friends of Muckamore in hoping for the very best for their people. A lot of them are adults who have been there for many years — if they are to move into the community, there must be proper resources to assist them. Some people would like those patients to stay in Muckamore for longer than necessary, but human-rights legislation stipulates that such people are entitled to proper care in the community. Provided that the proper care is available there, we support their return to the community.
The ongoing crisis in hospitals is a massive subject, but we will not resolve that by attacking individuals — and certainly not by attacking the Minister. The problems go back for years, when beds were closed by other Administrations. When beds are closed you cannot just open them up again. You need the resources and you need trained nurses. Some of the boards are getting nurses from abroad. I am sure they are very able girls, but a consultant recently told me about a nurse trained in the United States, who had impressive qualifications. When asked to take a patient’s blood pressure, she did not know how to do it. I am not belittling that nurse — she was trained in a certain way — but training is a major problem. I know that the Minister and the Department are tackling it, but all of us must work together on this crisis.
My last point is on primary care. The Minister is publishing her document, and I hope it will affect everybody in this Chamber and every person in Northern Ireland in primary care.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: When we get to this stage, after having talked so much, there tends to be a lot of repetition. The Programme for Government affords an excellent opportunity for us to discuss policy. As other Members mentioned earlier, this is the first time in 25 years that something like the Programme for Government has been discussed by local representatives. However that does not mean that we should refrain from criticism, and there are a lot of things in this document which do need to be criticised.
This document seems to be very aspirational. It uses a lot of flowery language. It actually talks about implementing new legislation and policies. However, it does very little about developing programmes, and that concerns me. For instance, as far as promoting equality and human rights, as stated on page 18, is concerned, the document simply lists all of the things that the Government must do anyway. It does not tell us how that is to be communicated to the communities.
In terms of listing the actions to be taken to ensure human rights, the document could have stated how we could use affirmative action policies to meet the targets when set. That work has been lost in this draft programme, and I hope that Ministers consider including it at some stage. I hope people will forgive me for thinking that the Natural Law Party had been elected and is actually in Government. The proposal to set up centres for curiosity and imagination sounds like something it would come up with.
As a Belfast City councillor, I know that there already is a good community arts sector. It is well organised and is coming up with lots of ideas. We need to take arts to the community so that people can understand what it is about. I get no sense of that when I look at the objective of setting up centres of curiosity and imagination. It is a very bland statement and suggests that people do not have imagination and are not curious about the arts. We need to be more positive rather than negative. Perhaps the Programme for Government will outline exactly what that means.
I was astounded that people talked about how they were going to improve community relations by educating people together and building houses for them to live together. This programme does not mention anything about an integrated housing programme or integrated education. Yet people talk about both of those things helping improve community relations.
The Government have also shied away from the fact that Catholic and Protestant teachers are trained in different establishments. There is no mention in the document of why we need two teacher training colleges. Teacher training methods are the same, and it does not matter whether you are Protestant or Catholic. No one in the Government has talked about this. They have just come up with flowery language and aspirations suggesting that we intend to deal with community relations. We need to encourage people to live together and be educated together. Our present integrated school system has been refused funding by the Government, and it is parents, not the Government, who are driving it. We have actions in the draft programme to improve community relations, but there is no notion, or no mention, of how we are actually going to achieve it.
Public health and the prevention of ill health were very well prioritised and well laid out. Unfortunately the issue of access to acute services in rural areas was not mentioned. That has been the subject of great discussion, and I had hoped to see how we would deal with it. The last action point says
"by 2002, revise a curriculum for schools to enhance the status and impact of health education."
It does not tell us what they are going to do to achieve this. I suggest we introduce education on relationships and sexuality. We need to think about things like this, rather than just make bland statements about revising the curriculum.

Mr Paul Berry: I have read the Programme for Government, and I do not know whether to laugh or to cry. There are not only contradictions between sections, but even within the sections themselves. I want to concentrate on section 3. The first thing that is apparent is the absence of reality and priority.
This is nothing but a wish-list. If acted upon, it would require every other Department to be closed down to achieve these goals. This drives home the fact that if any Department needs to be reviewed, it is the present Health Department. If this Administration were to attempt to follow what is written here, they would either fail completely or require it to be very domineering. That, no doubt, would suit the terrorist ideology of the party to which the current Minister of Health belongs and which she represents.
Secondly, there are some very dubious claims made on the causes of ill health. There is an old saying that if one makes a half-truth the whole truth, it becomes a lie. Worse than that, no budget will ever be able to meet what the ideology of simply looking at alleged causes would require. We have a nanny state that is out of control.
We get the usual Republican rant about cross-border issues. The ordinary people will quite rightly fail to see how that will solve the real health problems in Northern Ireland or return accident and emergency services to, say, Whiteabbey. It will simply provide the most lucrative gravy train since fuel smuggling started. Perhaps it is a placement for unemployed terrorists.
Thirdly, the number of areas that the Department presumes to have authority over, and seeks to control, is huge. Here is a programme that is going to look after housing, wages, family life, diet, disability, the mentally ill, the terminally ill, Sure Start, residential care — and the list goes on. It is little wonder that nothing is being done to deal adequately or effectively with these problems. The areas where goals will definitely be achieved should have been set out, and priorities should have been stated.
Fourthly, I note that of all the hospitals in Northern Ireland only two get a mention in this document. I recall my Colleague Iris Robinson referring to the current Minister of Health as a west Belfast politician with a west Belfast mentality. That seems to have been borne out yet again. All the other hospitals do not matter enough to get a pledge for anything.
Fifthly, there is a very suspicious and rather worrying statement on page 33. It reads
"Everyone has a right to timely quality care based on clinical and social need."
To use social need to determine health care is a very dangerous concept. Where is the proper view that health care is free to all? That point needs to be addressed. What rules will be used to determine this? Who will determine this? There seems to be a deliberate shift of emphasis in who is going to get health care. On this point alone this entire section should be scrapped and replaced with something acceptable.
The current section is too ambitious. By trying to do everything, little will be achieved. Furthermore, there is no mechanism in existence that could possibly monitor or control everything mentioned.
This section will not be fulfilled, and its failure to deliver will result in a deliberate falsification of what is achieved — on the same scale as was operated by bureaucrats under Stalin — to make it all read right in the newspapers. It will produce bureaucracy obsessed with image and spin. If the answers to written questions are anything to go by, that process has already begun.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not know how I am going to follow that. Sinn Féin’s goal is to improve the health and social well-being of the people on this island. Everyone is entitled to access to a quality health service. We are all conscious of the social, cultural and economic inequalities that exist in the Health Service and other areas. Added to that, the poverty and disadvantage faced by our communities will have a direct bearing on the state of public health, on individual self-esteem and on human rights.
I welcome the statement in the draft Programme for Government where the Executive point out that they too recognise the inequalities in the life experience of our communities in poverty, health, housing, educational and economic opportunity and disability. I welcome the fact that the Executive are determined to tackle them.
It has been clear for quite some time — and it has been reaffirmed in the draft Programme for Government — that people in the North suffer from high levels of ill health.
The death rate shows that. The figures for problems such as heart disease and teenage pregnancy are among the highest in Western Europe. Given that record and the fact that the Programme for Government admits that the provision of services to treat illness is falling behind, we must ensure that the Department of Health is properly funded. The document says that the Barnett formula is not fair, but what have the Executive done to address the matter? Barnett himself has criticised the formula because it does not reflect need.
Under the heading ‘Working for a Healthier People,’ the overall strategy to improve public health focuses on reducing preventable disease, ill health and health inequalities. Does that mean that the Executive will work to redress the inequalities faced by people living west of the Bann? If the Programme for Government is realistically to tackle the cycle of disadvantage and focus on the causes of preventable diseases, it needs to ensure that policies, funding and programmes strike at these problems. Among the range of factors that contribute to disadvantage is low income, and there is also a close connection between family poverty and high infant mortality.
Another priority of the Executive is to ensure that the environment supports healthy living and that recreational facilities are improved. Where does that leave the issue of glass-fronted fires, which statistics show have led to an increase in asthma among our young people? Will the money be provided to remove these fires, thus improving public health?
Have the Executive the power to direct local councils not only to improve but also to provide recreational facilities? For years, local councils have discriminated against working-class and Nationalist communities. While the lead Minister is Bairbrede Brún, cross-departmental responsibility requires that all Departments target resources to the most disadvantaged areas. I am disappointed that not all Departments are involved. We are all aware that health affects us all.
I agree that the action to produce cross-departmental plans for securing reductions in the main causes of ill health requires specific measures to reduce poverty by tackling the community differential. While the Programme for Government informs us of the implementation of the new TSN action plans there is no mention of whether those plans address the community differential, or whether resources have been skewed to the most disadvantaged areas. One example is the Grand Opera House in Belfast, which is entitled to grants under TSN as it falls in a TSN area. That omission needs to be corrected.
If we are to provide timely and effective treatment, the Programme for Government must address the allocation, location and siting of resources. We must ensure that the proposal for a modern acute hospital service and the measures to maintain, where possible, safe and effective services at smaller hospitals do not result in even greater levels of disadvantage. If the trend towards centralisation of services in bigger hospitals, particularly in the Greater Belfast area, is not reversed, many rural communities will be further disadvantaged.
Ill health is not confined within borders, and given the size of our island there is a necessity for us to work together and address health issues on an all-Ireland basis. The Programme for Government includes an action point to take forward work in the North/South Ministerial Council giving an immediate priority to cancer, et cetera. As a party, we are clear about the importance of that work. However, we recently witnessed the First Minister playing politics by vetoing Sinn Féin. Given Mr Trimble’s clear disregard for people’s health, will the North/South Ministerial Council be able to function on health issues?

Mr Sammy Wilson: The last speech indicates the flaws in a Programme for Government that allows the bone-breakers of IRA/Sinn Féin to stand up and eulogise about human rights and the health of the community.
The First Minister used colourful language to describe the Programme for Government: it is a road map; it is a contract between the Assembly and the people. On a previous occasion he called it a shining light in the dark recesses of Government. When we look at the Programme for Government, we see that it is none of those things.
I want to talk about a few issues to illustrate this. Chapter 2 talks about the viability and the integrity of rural and urban neighbourhoods. The Government are committed to maintaining those. When the Minister of Education came to the Education Committee, I asked him what that meant. How would the Department of Education fulfil that part of the contract? Would he give the same treatment to small rural schools that he is offering to Irish-medium schools, where they can start if they have twelve pupils? He would not give that commitment, yet this is meant to be a contract. He would not give any commitment. He either would not or he could not, and yet we are told that this is a contract.
We are told that it is a road map which will tell us how to get from one place to another. There is a lot of information in it about tackling disruptive behaviour and raising literacy standards. When I asked the Minister of Education if he would he give me just three things that would be done — three ways of getting from one place to the other — to improve literacy standards, he could not give them, yet this is meant to be a road map. Perhaps his reluctance to answer questions is a hangover from his previous employment, when he found that answering questions was a rather dangerous occupation.
As has been said by other Members today, on one hand we are told that the Programme for Government has been carefully costed — that is what the First Minister said this morning — and then in the next breath he told us that we have to use our imagination. Either it has been carefully costed, and there are commitments, or it has not. It is odd that we are given some specifics — for example, so many houses will be improved. However, in other cases we are just given vague generalisations. If the whole of this programme has been costed, surely we ought to be able to know what lies behind each statement. The vast majority of these statements use words like "we will establish"; they say that they will continue to do something, or produce certain things, and the specifics are left out. The cynic would say, of course, that they are left out so that when they are not delivered, you cannot point the finger at anybody.
This is the contract we are being asked to sign. I do not believe that this draft Programme for Government is an important document. I do not believe that it shines a searchlight into the darker recesses of Government, nor indeed is it a contract which any lawyer would encourage you to sign. I have given two or three examples, to illustrate the point.
This is a contract so full of loopholes that it could be better described as a fishing net. For that reason, I believe that those who really want to see effective, efficient and accountable government in Northern Ireland would say that it falls short and is not worthy of support in its present form.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am disappointed that the Programme for Government did not mention the private finance initiative (PFI), which was introduced by John Major’s Conservative Government in 1992. The motivation behind PFI was to reduce public expenditure at a time when public borrowing was out of control. Put simply, the aim of PFI was to achieve public sector investment without appearing to increase public sector borrowing. It was a sleight of hand in many ways.
It has been strongly opposed by Unison, the largest union in the public sector. Significantly, the British Medical Council has added its voice to those opposing PFI. The British Medical Journal described PFI as
"perfidious, financial idiocy that could destroy the NHS."
PFI is expensive and wasteful.
Private finance initiatives will damage the NHS, now and in the future, and PFI projects are escalating in both scale and cost. They reduce pay, employment and working conditions. Most importantly, PFI represents an unacceptable increase in the privatisation of economic and social life. Critically, PFI involves the determination of such public services as health and education, using unaccountable, commercial criteria rather than those based on social need. In a nutshell, PFI represents profit before people. This has been illustrated by the latest increase in electricity charges by a rate three times greater than the rate of inflation. People are now being asked to get subsidies for private investment which will be paid for by the Government.
A further example of this theory is the privately owned car park at the Royal Victoria Hospital, the use of which by staff is subsidised by the board. Money is being paid out by the board to a private investor, when it should be being asked to reduce the board’s expenditure. In the education sector, the closure of school maintenance depots, because of the contracting out of services under PFI, is creating job losses. School governors have to be more careful about their expenditure, with the result that school maintenance is affected.
Since the Labour Government came to power, £45 million has been paid out by the Department of Health to lawyers, financial advisors and other consultants. Government figures issued last March show that the bill for PFI consultants since 1997 would pay the salaries of 3,230 nurses for one year. It would also have allowed the Health Secretary almost to double the allocation of new money for heart operations.
Private companies which build or refurbish hospitals to lease back to the National Health Service earn over £20 million. Financial consultants have been paid £20 million, while other consultants have received £10 million. We can only guess at how many beds this wasted money, used to subvent private investment, could have provided for the Health Service. The private finance initiative is merely a dressed-up term for privatisation.
Essential services, such as health and education, must remain under the protective responsibility of public bodies, the core responsibility of Central Government. No party which calls itself a social democratic party or, like Sinn Féin, a Socialist Republican party — and I do not use the term "Socialist" in a dialectic sense — indeed, no party with a social conscience, which cares about the protective social fabric of our society, can give way to the concept of PFI without scrutinising the social implications of a laissez- faire attitude towards it for health and education. We must not allow PFI to compromise further those who are already socially and economically disadvantaged.

Mr Mark Robinson: The overwhelming wish from this most wondrous wish-list, namely a cohesive, inclusive society, is stated again and again in this document, and the overriding and central element needed to produce this seeming Utopia is "A feeling of justice for all."
To create this form of justice for at least a minority of the citizens of this Province, it has been necessary to strip the name of one of the best police services in Europe, if not the best one. This has been done not in part — the name has not been given second place — rather there has been a complete annihilation of that name, even though such action has been deemed shocking and unfair by the Lords of the Realm and in spite of promises to the Unionist community by persons of the first order. However, perhaps this action is now to be known as an innovative policy. If this ongoing sublimation of pride is to continue, and if the expected observances of one side of the province’s citizenry are to be viewed as aspiring to a feeling of justice for all, a unique idea of justice must be envisaged.
Is the Unionist/Protestant community to go on as over the past decades with a give, give, give policy and the Nationalist/Roman Catholic community with more, more, more or take, take, take tactics before finally, if ever, admitting that they feel a sense of justice for all? Is there even a faint possibility that at the dawn of that ever- elusive day, any remaining members of the Unionist community will feel that same sense of justice and enjoy life in such "a secure and cohesive society"?
In one of the few places in this Programme for Government where actual, hard and fast figures are given, we are informed that Province-wide there will be 400 more offers under access to work, 50 places in employment support and 60 work trials under the job introduction scheme. Almost 510 jobs are envisaged. Then follow 26 paragraphs promising arbitration schemes, accessibility to culture, improved transparency, new formulae, equal impact assessments and cross-departmental approaches. This soaring list of promises lacks one notable entity — specific quantities. Until we read 26 paragraphs, there are no figures of any kind.
Then we see some figures which are very specific. By keeping to the present level of co-owners’ support, 570 families Province-wide will gain a foothold on home ownership; 36 more families will be allowed to purchase from housing associations per year; and disabled people will have access to 1,500 more buildings in the Province. The paucity of these figures sits uneasily beside the grandiose schemes described on those pages where no parameters are given at all.
Under heading 2.2.1. the final action promised is a review of the appointment and promotion procedures in the Northern Ireland Senior Civil Service. Does this herald another purge of Protestant senior civil servants? These people have worked for years to obtain by merit a high position in their chosen field only to be replaced by someone who claims discrimination and who gains under the politically correct banner of under-representation. Perhaps we should see any such allocations as the workings of TSN "re-direction of resources". The senior civil servant now holding the resources will henceforth be discriminated against in favour of another, who will be positively singled out for preferential treatment. Will this ever further the core element of a feeling of justice for all?

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. A recent newspaper editorial read
"Why don’t our leaders tell it as it is? Nothing will ever be the same again in this island."
The UK and Irish Governments have signed an internationally binding agreement regarding the future of this island and specifically in respect of the Six Counties. This means great change for all of us here, and for some people this is the change that they cannot countenance. Painful as it may be, change allows the possibility of debate and a dignified response to this Programme for Government. If we do not all pull together on this, we may be in danger of pulling ourselves apart. If that happens our communities will suffer.
It is important that the Programme for Government extends the opportunity to all citizens of this country, North and South, to get real and to join together in seeking new solutions to new problems and new solutions to old problems. That might enable us to address the current paranoid myth which says that if Catholics get more, Protestants will get less. Targeting social need means that whatever their religious or political beliefs, resources must be targeted at those most in need. If through the Programme for Government we create equality, parity of esteem, rights, and action TSN, really nothing will be the same again. The promotion of equality and human rights is now enshrined within law and central to the agreement, as they are to the Programme for Government.
They must form the basis, not in rhetoric but in action, of how this Programme for Government will address the most vulnerable members of society, the young, the old, the victims and survivors of the conflict, the disabled, the travelling communities, those living west of the Bann and those on the ShankillRoad. However, the Programme for Government does not tell us how the Assembly will contribute to the Bill of Rights, as outlined in the Good Friday Agreement. Nor does it tell us if the Assembly will set up a cross-party human rights Committee.
In terms of victims, the Northern Ireland Office, which represents the state, needs to acknowledge that it has not been a passive or neutral player in the experience and management of conflict and is therefore not a neutral or passive player in managing how the needs of victims of state violence are met. In this respect it is not clear under paragraph2.2 what exactly will be the nature of the cross- departmental strategy group or the interdepartmental working group, and how these will relate to the victims’ liaison unit and the victims’ unit, and these to date have created total confusion among victims and contributed to the notion of a hierarchy of victims. The work of groups who are dealing with victims of state violence at grass-roots level is being constantly undermined by the victims’ liaison unit and the victims’ unit, not to mention the duplication of resources.
Under paragraph 2.3.1, travellers, the most marginalised group on this island, are discussed. From 2001 it is proposed to develop appropriate permanent accommodation to meet travellers’ needs. Having listened to a direct rule Minister some years ago, I had hoped that this particular programme would be under way. I am now told that it is not. In paragraph2.3 we find these words:
"ensure appropriate measures are taken to address the educational needs of Traveller children and children from other ethnic minorities",
The Programme for Government does not tell us how or when this will happen or what timescale is envisaged.
In terms of employment support for the disabled, some of those who were encouraged to sign on for New Deal programmes are now being penalised by losing entitlements to disability living allowance and incapacity benefit. Under paragraph2.2.1 it is not clear how the needs of the disabled will be addressed in terms of access for them to sports, arts and venues.
However, I would like to welcome free travel for our senior citizens, which will now bring us into line with provisions in the Republic.
Under paragraph 4.3
"We will seek to ensure that all our young people have the skills and qualifications to gain employment in a modern economy."
To address this inequality, we must, as stated, concentrate on the digital divide and explore ways to equip those living in the most disadvantaged areas to exploit the opportunities of technology. How do we propose to make all our young people computer literate? Existing plans for 4,200 additional undergraduate places by 2004 must address the disparity of places in those disadvantaged areas.
Finally, I welcome the proposed single equality Bill, which may address the existing discrimination in terms of gender, employability, and the elderly.

Rev Robert Coulter: I give a broad welcome to the Programme for Government. Much has been said about its aspirational language. However, at the beginning of section3, there is an honest recognition that our general health record is not good. Even though the Health Department has inherited an array of National Health Service problems, once we recognise the initial premise, we can instigate the necessary programme of activity to redress the wrongs. You only have to look at the thousands on waiting lists, the cancelled operations and the long waiting times at accident and emergency units to know that there is a need for immediate action. If we are to tackle these problems effectively, it is essential that we focus on their causes and ensure that our policies and programmes tackle them.
However, the next paragraph states
"We need to create the right socio-economic conditions and break into the cycle of disadvantage which is the major cause of ill-health."
That has not been proven philosophically or otherwise. Reducing preventable disease must be the first objective of any health service. I am glad that the programme will demand the attention of other Departments — seven others are mentioned. The Department of Health’s problems cannot be seen in isolation as being the answer to the problem that faces us all. The causes of ill health must be taken on board, and throughout this section we are returning to the primary cause of our future needs — dealing with the causes of ill health. Modernising and improving hospitals and the primary care services is also considered, and the logic of the argument for acute hospitals is sound and acceptable.
I spoke to a group of people in the south-west of the Province the other evening, and they admitted that no one would mind going to acute hospitals for acute services. The problem is not with the acute hospitals, but with the aftercare. When the operation is over and the patient is in need of 24-hour professional nursing care, he is sent home because the acute hospital is so busy and under such demands. Therefore, I suggest that the acute hospitals cannot be looked at in isolation. Mention is given to developing proposals for a modern acute hospital service. We must take steps, where possible, to maintain safe and effective services at the smaller hospitals. I am sorry that more attention was not paid to providing aftercare in community or convalescent hospitals in the main centres of population.
New management arrangements for the recruitment and training of additional nursing and front-line staff were mentioned. We have already heard about the problem someone in one of our major hospitals faced the other evening. He was looking for an acute bed for a seriously ill patient and could not find one. Finally, Craigavon Hospital said that it had found enough nurses to man another acute hospital bed.
This section deals with the very heart of the problem in our modern Health Service — the lack of nursing and front-line staff. That is the critical problem. Following a motor accident in my part of the Province, North Antrim, the victims had to be taken to Craigavon Hospital for treatment, when there were two hospitals within 20 miles of the scene of the accident. What can be done, or what should be done, about that? The Ambulance Service was also mentioned —

Sir John Gorman: The Member’s time is up.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. It is difficult not to feel like a member of the band on the Titanic when debating this issue. In the week that the Programme for Government was launched, the First Minister and his party were plotting an exit strategy from these institutions. Granted, the First Minister’s was a temporary exit strategy while others in his party would prefer a permanent one.
The future of the Programme for Government may be dubious, but it is important to comment on the equality aspects in the document. Sinn Féin will be measuring the potential success of the Programme for Government against its stated ability to deliver on equality obligations — to deal with entrenched social, economic and cultural rights as well as with the civil and political ones at the heart of its operations; to tackle the religious differential in employment; and actively to target social need.
Bearing that in mind, it is disconcerting that the mission statement in paragraph11.2 fails to mention equality or measures for tackling structural discrimination. The section on promoting equality and human rights fails to take advantage of the scope for positive discrimination. The action plan does not mention the strategy for tackling religious differentials in employment, and it does not refer to partnership arrangements to deliver any of the programmes.
In the section on tackling poverty and social disadvantage, the Executive missed a golden opportunity to put in place an anti-poverty strategy encompassing all sectors. TSN alone will not address society’s deep-rooted problems of poverty and disadvantage. This requires a unified, strategic approach across Departments and sectors, with a commitment of resources as well as specific goals and timetables.
Paragraph2.5.2 fails to take into account the position afforded to the Irish language under the Good Friday Agreement, and it does not apply the equality duty to the rights of the Irish-language community. Paragraph 1.16 refers to the equality impact assessment carried out on the Programme for Government. How was this done; who was consulted; and what were the recommendations? The equality duty places an obligation on Departments to consult on the equality impact of all functions and policies — how was this done?
We challenge the assertion that it is not possible to apply a detailed impact assessment of equality to the whole Programme for Government. A method for this must be found and, as far as possible, it should be uniform across the Departments. The Executive and the Programme for Government should not be exempt from monitoring and impact assessment.
Sinn Féin believes that the Equality Unit’s suggestion in the Programme for Government and the Budget that the criteria for measuring need should vary according to the policy or practice under consideration by the Department or public body is a charter for chaos. There must be consistency in how need is measured if the same need is to be addressed.
A further difficulty is the scheduling of publications. While there are references throughout the document to TSN action plans, these plans are not available to the public, so no one can judge the efficacy of claims made about the delivery of equality and TSN to detailed actions and budgets. It is therefore impossible for the beneficiaries of the Programme for Government to make any genuine assessment of it. This must be urgently addressed to ensure that there is full delivery and accountability.
TSN is a policy initiative. It is complementary to the equality duty, and it must be governed by that fact. It is therefore illogical that TSN action plans have not been included in the Programme for Government to ensure scrutiny in the context of this duty. TSN should be redesignated as a public expenditure priority and featured as such within the Programme for Government and the Budget. The TSN action plans must be formulated in compliance with the statutory duty to promote equality of opportunity and detailed explicit programmes of affirmative action with targets and timetables deliberately designed to lift those most disadvantaged in our society. This has not been done, and that is a major flaw in both documents. This also distorts the debate on the equality duty and the eradication of religious discrimination in this society. Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I speak as the Minister for Social Development, dealing with matters within my brief, unlike other Ministers who have wandered outside the areas of their briefs. I assure Members that my Department and I will continue to work vigorously to promote the interests of the most deprived and marginalised members of society. Meeting social and economic need lies at the core of my Department’s programme, and that is strongly reflected in the Programme for Government.
Within my Department the provision of affordable social housing is a key priority and a vital component of regeneration and the promotion of social inclusion. People in Northern Ireland, particularly those on low incomes and the disabled, expected us to produce effective policies for meeting their housing needs, to tackle unfit accommodation and to enable them to get on the ownership ladder. My aims are to provide affordable social housing, promote more effective and economical heating systems, maintain or improve the present level of co-ownership, increase the numbers who can buy their homes from housing associations and increase the number of adaptations to existing buildings to improve access for disabled people.
In my recent meeting with the Social Development Committee on the Programme for Government, the Committee indicated that it would like to have seen specific mention made of improving the level of unfitness in rural housing and the setting of more measurable targets. I wish to confirm that I will acknowledge these views as we continue to refine our commitments in the programme in the light of final decisions on the Budget for 2001-02. I have not yet decided on the rent increases for Housing Executive tenants from 1 April 2001. I met the Committee recently, and I discussed this matter. It has deliberated, and I am awaiting its views.
Another key priority for the Department for Social Development is tackling poverty and social exclusion, particularly where children are affected. I am determined to target its causes and effects. I was disappointed that action for children was not accorded a higher priority in the Programme for Government. We will ensure that all objectives in the new targeting social need action plans are achieved, and we will work with other Departments to promote social inclusion.
The Assembly has passed the Child Support, Pension and Social Security Act, which is awaiting Royal Assent. It will help to ensure better support for children and improvements in the provision of retirement pensions. It is the only piece of substantial legislation that has been passed by the Assembly.
There is continuing evidence of deprivation and social exclusion in the Province. The Department for Social Development must take the lead in implementing definable improvements in disadvantaged neighbourhoods and assist in empowering local communities. A new urban regeneration strategy will be launched early in 2001, aiming to bridge the gap between the most deprived neighbourhoods and the rest of Northern Ireland, lower long-term unemployment, reduce crime and promote better health and educational qualifications. There will also be strong linkages to the provision of good and affordable housing. Inner north Belfast will benefit greatly from the URBAN II programme. It is an excellent opportunity to address, in a co-ordinated way and with local people, the physical and economic decline and dislocation of the community infrastructure in that area.
I recognise and appreciate the work of the various voluntary and community organisations in Northern Ireland. The Programme for Government reflects the important and invaluable contribution these organisations make to the social and economic well-being of our community. The Department for Social Development will continue to work to maximise the contribution this sector can make to the delivery and implementation of the programme.
I would like to emphasise that the actions I have outlined are not merely aspirational; rather we are embarking on clearly focused programmes of work. In due course these will be underpinned by measurable targets and objectives against which our performances can be assessed. I have agreed to share this information with the Social Development Committee.
The social security system plays an important role in the social and economic life of Northern Ireland. The majority of people who claim benefits do so honestly and properly. We know, however, that others do not, and I am determined to take whatever action is necessary to prevent fraud and abuse of the system. The targets I have set for reducing fraud and error levels are challengeable and realistic.
Finally, the provisions in the Programme for Government reflect the priorities and direction of the Department for Social Development. They take account of the Department’s draft budget allocations, but they can be further refined in the light of the views given in the consultation programme. I am grateful for the constructive and positive contribution the Social Development Committee has made in our discussion programme. I will take its views on board as we proceed. There is much more I would like to say, but time does not permit me to say it.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Tógadh réimse leathan ceisteanna ag Teachtaí le linn an tráthnóna, agus leis an am atá fágtha agam, ba mhaith liom freagra a thabhairt ar oiread de na pointí a tógadh agus a thig liom.
A wide range of issues has been raised by Members in the course of the debate, and I would like to address as many of them as possible. Clearly time is of the essence. I will try to cover as many points as possible, including those that are the responsibility of other Ministers, drawing as necessary on material provided by the relevant Departments. Any points I am unable to address may be covered at a later stage in the debate, possibly in writing by the relevant Minister.
Nigel Dodds said there was nothing new, and Billy Hutchinson asked for further detail. Unfortunately neither is here to hear the answer. In the Programme for Government we have set out very clear priorities and detailed plans of action to carry them through, using the available resources to improve people’s health, education and skills, create jobs, tackle disadvantage and protect the environment.
Mr Dodds asked specifically about funding for the North/South Ministerial Council. It must be pointed out that the figures in the Budget proposals were expressed on the basis of a financial year and therefore do not tally precisely with those initially agreed by the North/South Ministerial Council, which were based on a calendar year. Where the most is made of economies of scale, expenditure on North/South bodies — provided, of course, that they continue to exist and are not blocked — will save money, and this action will improve services for all throughout the island.
Éamonn ONeill asked if the money being allocated would address new priorities or merely be put to addressing underfunding in the recent past. I cannot speak in detail for each Department; that must be a matter for the Ministers themselves. In health and social services the money is going towards addressing problems which have arisen as the result of recent historical underfunding. Had we not had a situation in which, over the years, £190 million of savings were made by the Department — more than by any other local government section here — we would be in a very different position. Those savings were not put back into health and social services here, unlike in England where they were put back into the National Health Service.
John Kelly asked about the private finance initiative. The Programme for Government includes a commitment to review, by 2002, opportunities for the use of private finance in all major public service provisions and decide whether such partnerships are practical. There will be full public consultation to help us develop a cross- cutting public health strategy. We shall examine proposals for health impact assessment on all policies. Paul Berry said that was being overambitious for one Department. This is, of course, a cross-departmental strategy.
Given that time is of the essence, and since I see that people have left, I may pass over some responses in case I do not manage to deal with everyone’s questions.
Kieran McCarthy, Robert Coulter and others raised specific questions about the Ulster Hospital and bed shortages in general. The draft Budget allocates an additional £7 million to combat the pressures on hospital beds and waiting lists in 2001-2002, and we will now be able to provide 13 high-dependency beds to improve capacity in this vital area. In the Ulster Hospital, there will be two extra intensive care unit beds this year. Next year, there will be six extra high-dependency beds.
We are very much aware that it is not merely a question of the beds themselves, and I welcome Robert Coulter’s comments about the need for a more integrated service. That is precisely what I wish to see. I appreciate Joe Hendron’s comments that we are addressing an inherited situation, and I have asked for a review of our acute hospital capacity to be completed by September 2001.
Billy Hutchinson asked about the promotion of equality and human rights. Specific actions to promote equality and human rights are detailed on pages 19 and 20.
The debate stood adjourned.
The sitting was suspended at 2.00 pm.
On resuming (Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions

Enterprise, Trade and Investment

West Tyrone: Investment Projects

Mr Joe Byrne: 1. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment if he will detail the number of inward investment projects the Industrial Development Board secured for West Tyrone in each of the last fiveyears; and if he will make a statement.
(AQO275/00)

Sir Reg Empey: No green-field, foreign direct investments have been secured for West Tyrone since April 1994. However, since that time the Industrial Development Board (IDB) has financially assisted eight expansion projects from externally owned companies, and these have created 372 new jobs and safeguarded 438 existing jobs.

Mr Joe Byrne: There has been great concern in West Tyrone for many years about the IDB’s track record in bringing inward investment to and creating jobs in this area. Does the Minister agree that the IDB’s track record is poor?
Will the Minister and his Department reassure the people of West Tyrone that they will put into practice the equality legislation and the new TSN in order to achieve balanced economic development across Northern Ireland? Will the Minister ensure that the IDB will exhaustively examine and evaluate all potential job creation projects presented to it, particularly any projects that may be currently on the desks of IDB executives? The people of West Tyrone are in grave danger of losing faith in the IDB because of its very poor record.

Sir Reg Empey: It is unfair to condemn the IDB in that way. First, the IDB is committed, as is the Department, to working with local authorities. Only recently the IDB held a meeting in West Tyrone — in Omagh — and had discussions with many local representatives. The Department is fully committed to the equality legislation and has set a target for first time visits of 75% to new TSN areas. Currently that target is being achieved, if you take the Province as a whole, and we are strongly committed to ensuring that that continues.
I want to make a number of observations. The position in both council areas concerned is that there is continuing downward pressure on unemployment. Unemployment is falling in the Strabane and Omagh district council areas. If the Member cares to examine the most recent figures, published last month, he will see that that is the case. The difference is quite marked compared to two or three years ago.
Most of the jobs created in West Tyrone, as with everywhere else, come from indigenous companies. Foreign direct investment is only responsible for a relatively small proportion of the new jobs created in Northern Ireland. The vast majority are created by businesses that are already there. The Local Enterprise Development Unit (LEDU) is extremely active in the area, and many client companies throughout West Tyrone are receiving attention.
Other problems arise because of, for example, the concentration of the textile industry in that part of the county. The Member will be aware that the Department is very much involved at the moment with the textile sector. Next month I expect to publish the Kurt Salmon Associates proposals that have been created in conjunction with the industry, which is strongly represented in the Member’s constituency, and I look forward to the development of a strategy to help that sector.
I can assure the Member that, as far as this Department is concerned, West Tyrone and other new TSN areas will continue to receive a very high priority. We will continue to do everything in our power to strengthen the economic infrastructure in the area.

Mr Pat Doherty: Given the support that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have given the Omagh ‘Strategy 2010’ document, a document I also commend, does the Minister agree that a multi-agency task force should be set up to capitalise on the initiative both in Omagh and in the West Tyrone constituency area, as envisaged in that document?

Sir Reg Empey: I will, of course, look at any proposals. However, we run the risk of treading on the toes of the existing agencies that are already functioning in the area — for instance, both local authorities are extremely actively involved in economic development. We know that there are local partnerships, area partnerships and European partnerships, many of which have been extremely successful, and they are very vibrant organisations. I am conscious of the visit made by the Firstand the Deputy First Ministers to West Tyrone and of the matters they referred to. It is perfectly obvious that sometimes you reach a point where, although a great many organisations have been set up, things are not necessarily being done. You can sometimes have too many organisations. However, I would certainly be prepared to look at any realistic proposal.
I reiterate the point I made in my answer to the Member’s Colleague from West Tyrone. I am aware of the great pressure on the agriculture sector in West Tyrone. It is, however, outside our control; it has been imposed on us, not only by the currency differentials, which have affected the amount of support, but by a range of matters that have directly affected agriculture and had a knock-on effect. In fact, the progress that has been made on the industrial base in WestTyrone has, to some extent, been masked by the fact that the difficulties in the agriculture sector have been superimposed on it. Without making any firm commitment to the Member, I will certainly look at proposals, but I stress that there is a great deal of ongoing activity, and one would have to be convinced that any new suggestions would add value and not distract existing organisations from their current work.

Mr Oliver Gibson: The Minister is quite right when he says that an industry is growing up — it is called "the development industry" — around trying to attract money. In view of the fact that there has been such a downward trend in the farming industry and we now have the new poor in great measure, what is being done by LEDU to encourage indigenous industries? We need new infrastructure such as the Strabane stage 3 bypass, the Newtownstewart bypass and phase 3 of the Omagh bypass — which is £17million of investment — to make us much more viable from the point of view of transport — bear in mind that we have road transport services only. What is being done to ensure equality of opportunity? This is something that is levelled against all developing authorities. Things are more favourable for those who come from outside, but the local entrepreneur has great difficulties. What is being done to encourage —

Ms Jane Morrice: I must advise the Member that he must limit himself to the question in hand.

Sir Reg Empey: I am conscious of the infrastructural weaknesses in the district. The Member has referred to some of the planned remedial measures, but there are others. Infrastructure is not confined to roads; it can and does include telecoms, which are basic infrastructure. I am currently studying a report on that matter, and it is perfectly clear that towns in the west of the Province will be directly affected. Our objective will be to ensure that there is as level a playing field as possible, because in respect of telecoms, infrastructure is fundamental to the ability to attract industry and business.
The Member feels that indigenous companies do not get the same attention as foreign investors. Over the next decade the vast majority of jobs created in Northern Ireland industry will have to come from indigenous companies. There is a trend for less direct foreign investment, and incoming projects are generally smaller than they used to be.
If we have to create some 112,000 jobs over the next decade, they will not be created by direct foreign investment. They can only be created by indigenous companies or by the expansion of foreign-owned companies. The eight projects that have been supported by the Industrial Development Board, came from existing foreign-owned companies. The Local Enterprise Development Unit is active and successful in this area, and we are looking at the entire support package, and at the balance of that package, for the small business sector in particular, because that is the growth area of the future.
Ninety-nine per cent of companies in Northern Ireland employ fewer than 250 people, so if this sector is not receiving attention, then no sector is receiving it. I can assure the Member that these points will be kept in mind when we are reviewing the package.

Small and Medium-Sized Local Enterprises

Mr Jim Wilson: 2. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment if he will outline his plans to increase assistance to small and medium-sized local enterprises; and if he will make a statement.
(AQO269/00)

Sir Reg Empey: I am almost afraid to answer this question because the Member is sitting so close to me.
I will continue to ensure that the type and balance of assistance given to indigenous businesses, more than 99% of which fall inside the small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) category of employing fewer than 250 people, is the most effective method of achieving our objective of an enterprising, knowledge-based economy.

Mr Jim Wilson: The South Antrim constituency is made up mostly of the entire local government district of Antrim and most of the local government district of Newtownabbey. Both areas have much to commend them to inward investors. Can the Minister tell the House what the IDB’s record is in attracting investment to the two areas and how the IDB is marketing them?

Sir Reg Empey: The IDB continues to work with Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Councils to market the area to potential inward investors. It has invested signficantly to ensure that appropriate property is available, spending £4·3million on the infrastructure and development plateau at Ballyhenry. The IDB expects to see ProLogis Developments Ltd act as development manager, drawing down the land from the IDB on an agreed profit-sharing basis as occupiers fill the site. Additionally, it has spent £11·5million on the infrastructure and buildings at Antrim Technology Park since it opened in 1986.
The IDB will hold a regional meeting in the Dunadry Hotel on 29 November, where elected representatives and representation from client companies, education and the Antrim and Newtownabbey communities will have an opportunity to speak with the IDB board and executives on issues affecting the area. There are 48 clients on the list in the Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council areas, which together employ 9,300 people.
Since April 1995 the IDB has offered client companies in the council areas assistance totalling £26million in support of projects involving a total investment of £132·2million. These projects anticipate a total of 1,444 new jobs and will safeguard a further 1,560.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: The area of West Tyrone that I represent and my home town of Strabane would welcome any assistance for small firms and enterprises. However, the bureaucracy involved in helping small firms can take forever. If and when the agencies are restructured, will the Minister consider setting up a special task force to cut out the red tape and thus expedite assistance to these small companies? Will the Minister also share his thoughts with us on the issue of the US Small Business Administration (SBA) as distinct from selective financial assistance?

Sir Reg Empey: A number of Members have asked me about bureaucracy recently. Two years ago there was a review of all Government Departments and the necessity to produce paper for people to fill in. All the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment forms were reviewed, a number were eliminated and a number were redesigned. Within the last few weeks, I have asked officials to take each form and examine not only the need for the form but also the policy rationale for it.
Tourism is the first section that is going to be done. The objective will be to see whether it is absolutely necessary to have the form, whether there is a statutory basis for it, and whether it is a policy issue or purely an informative issue. I am going to go through each division of the Department systematically to see if all these bits of paper are essential.
Having been in business myself, I know only too well how frustrating it can be. Some things are inescapable, as the Member will know from his own experience. Where public money is involved there are accountability issues. The Government need certain information, which can only be obtained by asking questions. I am conscious of the pressures that companies are under. I will be taking personal interest in this to see if it is absolutely necessary to have each piece of paper.
With regard to the Small Business Administration in the United States, I have met the Cabinet Minister responsible, Aida Alvarez. She gave a seminar in Belfast in December 1998. The Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee delegation that went to Washington last August had a further meeting with Mr Charles Tansey, a senior official. There is no question that the potential of the loan versus selective financial assistance model is quite attractive.
However, there are statutory differences. First, the banking sector in the United States has certain statutory obligations to the community that do not obtain here. Secondly, where guarantees are given for loans, under current Treasury rules the Department would have to assume that the total value of the guarantee was spent. It would have to hold that cash back in reserve and not spend it. While those rules exist, or are applied in that fashion, there would be little gain. The American experience has been that only 5% or 6% of their loan book is actually called in in any one year, and Congress provides that revenue support, whereas under current Treasury rules we would have to provide 100% support.

Ms Jane Morrice: I am aware of the time constraints and the number of people wanting to speak. I ask the Minister to be brief in his responses.

ICT-Based Information and Advice Centres

Mr David Ford: 3. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment if he will detail where the regional outlets for the information computer technology information and advice centres will be located.
(AQO283/00)

Sir Reg Empey: No decision has been taken as to the location of the regional outlets. It is intended that they will be based within existing public buildings, as the purpose of the regional outlets will be to provide easy access to information and advice on health and safety at work issues.

Mr David Ford: I thank the Minister for his response, but I trust that he will very soon move beyond the Programme for Government and see the need for more issues than just health and safety to be addressed. Will he also look at the issue of the total number of outlets? At the moment, a large number of SMEs need not just access to the Internet but advice on navigating it. That is something that is not best done on a regional basis but may well be required in every district town.

Sir Reg Empey: The likelihood is that one or two pilot offices will be established initially to see how things go. The Member is correct about advice and so on. It does require a degree of spreading out. Certainly there will be one office in the Greater Belfast area. I think there will be at least two pilots initially, but I take the point he is making. It really is a question of how the pilot projects run. If the demand is there, the principle could be applied to a whole range of other services outwith health and safety, which happens to be what I am focusing on at the moment.
It is really a matter of seeing how it goes and how the pilots perform. If the Member wishes, when the pilots are established and the results of their operations become apparent, I will keep him informed.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: Will these centres be fully equipped? I know of similar situations — I think the Minister will be familiar with them too — where such equipment was set up and did not quite meet expectations. The Minister mentioned a couple of services. Will any others be provided? Will there be a fee per item, or will it be free? Ultimately, what are they expected to achieve?
Most importantly, with reference to Mr McMenamin’s earlier question, would it not be possible for some of the forms that confuse and overload people to be put on a database so that form-filling could be interactive, and they could be prompted. My information is that in the UnitedStates, for instance, where people fill in forms on a computer the number of mistakes is reduced dramatically. I welcome the move, but I wonder —

Ms Jane Morrice: Thank you. The question has been asked.

Sir Reg Empey: I am conscious of the point made by the Member. As he says, there is an opportunity for other organisations to be involved in the services. It will be an advice centre. I am aware that in Canada and in other places form-filling has been successfully dealt with in that way, and there is a very high take-up. We want these centres to be places where people can walk in off the street and have access. We have not yet worked out whether the pilot will be free or whether charges will be made, but we have to maximise the use of IT in the delivery of public services. We have a long way to go and, quite frankly, we are only at an early stage. I take the Member’s points under consideration.

Mr Roy Beggs: The Minister advised that the likely location would be in an existing public building. Does the Minister accept that that would further disadvantage those constituencies — for example, East Antrim — where the number of civil servants is already low?

Sir Reg Empey: The Member’s point is that from a cost-effectiveness point of view it makes sense for the centres to be in buildings that are already in public occupation rather than go to the expense of acquiring more buildings. The object of the exercise will be to ensure that on completion there will be a regional spread. We are only at the pilot stage, so we will have to see how it goes and learn. It may be that, if things are on line and available anywhere in the Province, the location of offices will be less significant, and what they actually do will be more significanct. It is too early to give the Member a definite answer, but I assure him that I understand the point he is making, and that will have to be taken into account when the final decisions are made.

Down Business Park: Investment Projects

4

Mr Eddie McGrady: asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment if he will outline his current and future plans for the location of inward investment projects at the Down Business Park in Downpatrick.
(AQO272/00)

Sir Reg Empey: The IDB is working with councils, the private sector, universities and further education colleges to win new knowledge-based projects for Northern Ireland. The new Down Business Park forms an important part of this strategy.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I thank the Minister for his short reply to the question. It does not give me much to go on, but I draw his attention to statistics indicating that inward investment visits to the constituency of South Down and to Down District Council were consistently less than 2% each year over the past decade and beyond. The ministerial team said here on 17 October that, since December, the IDB has promoted 7,100 jobs — 3,000 more than in the previous year. I would like to know where those jobs went. They certainly did not go east of the Bann or to South Down.

Sir Reg Empey: I am conscious of the Member’s representations. He has to be aware — he is aware — that the obligation on the IDB is to ensure that the maximum number of visits are to new TSN areas, and we are doing that to the best of our ability. However, people have to be aware that a company goes largely where it wants to go.
We can try to market an area, but a company will go where it wishes. Take the Down district area, for example. Between 3 July and 5 July of this year a Korean company visited the Down Business Park units. That was a repeat visit. Between 23 July and 25 July a USA company visited the area; between 24 August and 26 August a Korean company visited; between 1September and 3 September another Korean company visited; and between 27 September and 29September a third Korean company visited Down Business Park — again, that was a repeat visit.
There is activity taking place, and I am conscious that Down District Council is working hard to help with the strategy for the Down Business Park, about which the Member has written to me on a number of occasions. I assure the Member that activity is taking place and that the IDB is involved in that. I have just mentioned five visits which have taken place since July2000.

Mr Barry McElduff: My supplementary question related to Question 3 — I was not called.

Mr Jim Shannon: Will the Minister confirm that inward investment projects at the Down Business Park in Downpatrick will not prevent similar investment projects from taking place at Killyleagh, some eightmiles from Downpatrick? Does the Minister’s Department intend to make similar provisions in Killyleagh, in the light of the 200 to 250 job losses there in the last 18 months?

Sir Reg Empey: There is an assumption that the IDB can tell a company which is coming to Northern Ireland from abroad "We want you to visit here" or "We want you to go there". Members have to understand that the IDB cannot be as prescriptive as that. Clearly the pattern of business location in NorthernIreland has developed through the years as businesses have come and gone. We have projects such as Down Business Park, which the IDB has assisted in the development of. There is now a place in the district where companies can quickly establish manufacturing or other activities. I am conscious of the difficulties that arose in the textile industry in Killyleagh and the surrounding area in the Member’s constituency about this time last year. It is understandable that his Colleagues and he wish to draw attention to particular blackspots in their areas. However, Members should not exaggerate the degree to which the Government are able to determine where companies visit.
I take the point the Member has made and will ensure that the IDB is aware that it has to take into account other areas in addition to existing business parks where investment has already taken place.

Lagan Valley Constituency: Tourist Board Support

Mr Edwin Poots: 5. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment if he will outline his plans to address the shortfall in financial support from the Northern Ireland Tourist Board for the Lagan Valley constituency.
AQO289/00

Sir Reg Empey: The Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB) administers a number of grant schemes, which are open to applications from across Northern Ireland. The Tourist Board therefore encourages applications from the Lagan Valley area. Provided an application meets the published scheme criteria, the NITB will consider it on its merits.

Mr Edwin Poots: I thank the Minister for his response. I know that Lisburn Borough Council has been active in tourism and spends something like £0·75million per year of its budget on it. Therefore it is somewhat depressing when Lagan Valley is awarded £121,000 while other inland councils such as West Tyrone are offered £1·5 million. That is how it goes in the marketing end. We would like to see more hotels in the Lisburn and Lagan Valley area.

Ms Jane Morrice: Will the Member ask a question please?

Mr Edwin Poots: Is the Minister prepared to lift the moratorium on grant aid for hotels outside the 10-mile radius of Belfast?

Sir Reg Empey: The reason the moratorium was imposed in the first place was that there were enough people prepared to build and establish hotels with their own money, without recourse to public resources. If any arbitrary limit is imposed, such as nine, 10 or 11 miles, there is always a difficulty because people get on the wrong side of the limit.
The Member will be aware that there has been a difficulty with hotels in the Lisburn area for a number of years. Hotels closed down at Hilden and elsewhere. It has been difficult for hotels to establish themselves in this area. Part of the reason for that is their proximity to Belfast and, of course, the Forte hotel has now moved to Belfast. I do not have plans to remove the moratorium at the moment, but if I were convinced that there was a need or that it would make a difference, I would reconsider my position. With regard to the wider question —

Ms Jane Morrice: The time, Minister, is up.

Sir Reg Empey: I am trying to answer the question, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Ms Jane Morrice: Time is up.

Higher and further education, training and employment

Career Development Loans (Students)

Mrs Eileen Bell: 1. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment if he will detail his plans to make career development loans available to Northern Ireland students studying in NorthernIreland.
(AQO284/00)

Dr Sean Farren: My Department is considering options for introducing supported loan arrangements, particularly for further education courses. This will take account of the role that career development loans have played in Great Britain. I expect to be in a position to announce the outcome of work on how they may be developed in the future and the impact of individual learning accounts early in the new year.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I thank the Minister for his very encouraging answer. I am sure that the Minister will agree that this type of loan for vocational, rather than academic, courses is very necessary in today’s world.

Dr Sean Farren: I agree with the Member’s comments on the need to provide additional support to students, particularly those pursuing vocational courses at further and higher education levels. As I indicated in my response to her question, my Department is actively considering the matter of career development loans, and I reiterate that I hope to be in a position to make an announcement early in the new year, when all the deliberation is completed.

Mr James Leslie: In view of the difficulties that there have been in the administration of student loans, does the Minister accept that there may be a case for transferring this role from the Student Loans Company, which is based in Glasgow, to a locally based company?

Dr Sean Farren: The initial question addresses the issue of career development loans, which are administered in Great Britain by the commercial financial institutions — by a number of the banks. The question that is now being posed relates to student loans for undergraduate students pursuing higher education courses, which are administered by the Student Loans Company in Glasgow. It is an entirely different matter.

Training Facilities (East Belfast)

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 2. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment if he will outline his plans for the provision of training facilities in East Belfast; and if he will make a statement.
(AQO281/00)

Dr Sean Farren: The Training and Employment Agency, through existing programmes, currently contracts with five local training providers to offer a wide range of training which best meets the needs of employers. Future training developments will continue to concentrate on enabling local, particularly long-term, unemployed people, to get access to both new and existing jobs.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: Does the Minister realise that the proposed closure of the training facilities at Templemore Avenue, Willowfield and Park Avenue in east Belfast from the end of this academic year would create a severe shortage of such opportunities from Newtownards right through to Belfast city centre? Will the Minister agree to meet with representatives from the Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education, the Greater East Belfast Partnership, East Belfast Community Development Agency and other groups to hear of the concerns of the residents on this issue?

Dr Sean Farren: There are currently five recognised training organisations offering job skills training to a total of 440 young people in the area. Those are the five training providers that I referred to in my initial response.
In addition, Castlereagh College and the Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education, which has 600 places, serve the needs of people from east Belfast and further afield. Access training is available locally, and modern apprenticeships are widely accessible through local employers, in particular in Shorts-Bombardier. The various New Deal strands cater for adults, and they are complemented by the provision of a range of bridge-to- employment opportunities.

Madam Deputy Speaker:

As Mr Tierney is not here, the Member will receive a written answer to his question.

Dr Joe Hendron: 4. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment if he will detail the current status of the Training and Employment Agency and plans he has to review its status.
(AQO293/00)

Dr Sean Farren: The question relates to the current status of the Training and Employment Agency. It is a Next Steps agency within the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment. I have recently reviewed the Training and Employment Agency’s status and have concluded that its formal status as a Next Steps agency should be discontinued with immediate effect.

Dr Joe Hendron: Can the Minister give an assurance that the services provided by the Training and Employment Agency staff and offices will continue, or at least will not be disadvantaged, by the loss of agency status?

Dr Sean Farren: I can answer both questions in the affirmative. The services will continue to be provided, and the jobs and conditions of service for members of staff will not change. My decision will also not have any impact on the customers of the Training and Employment Agency.

Walsh Visa Programme

Mr Edwin Poots: 6. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment if he will detail (a)the number of young people who have participated in the Walsh Programme so far, (b)his satisfaction with the jobs allocated, and (c) the drop-out rate of those participating.
(AQO291/00)

Dr Sean Farren: Question 6? Has question 5 been withdrawn?

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member entered the Chamber at the moment question 6 was being put.

Dr Sean Farren: The number of young people from Northern Ireland who have participated in the Walsh Visa Programme to date is 254. I am satisifed that the jobs available, although they are at entry level to match the limited experience and skills of the target group, offer opportunities for further skills development and career advancement. To date, 139 participants have returned from the UnitedStates.

Mr Edwin Poots: I thank the Minister for his report, which is fairly damming. It was envisaged that up to 4,000young people a year would participate in the programme. We have 254, with a drop-out rate of 139. The jobs are not satisfactory, and a review of the Walsh Programme is needed. I ask the Minister to review this issue, as it is not satisfactory.

Dr Sean Farren: I do not accept that this is a damming situation, nor that it is unsatisfactory. The matter, with respect to the Walsh Visa Programme, has been under constant review from the outset. When the programme was put into operation it was recognised on all sides that the numbers originally targeted to participate annually were overly ambitious. That is the view of the Training and Employment Agency and FÁS, and is shared by the Department of Labor in the United States.
A number of drop-outs from the programme was expected, given the nature of the target group and the difficulties that they were already experiencing in the Northern Ireland labour market. The scale of the drop-out, however, is greater than anticipated and was a key issue for the scheduled review of the programme and the planning of the next phase.
Since early summer officials in my Department have had regular contact with the Department of Labor in Washington and have visited the USA for discussions with them and the US programme administrator. While there some weeks ago, my officials and I took the opportunity to discuss and review the Walsh Visa Programme with the Department of Labor. I also met some of the young people participating in the programme. I assure Members that many of them were quite satisfied with the administration of the programme.
Members will appreciate that there are many reasons, both personal and job-related, for so many drop-outs. I assure Members that when the review of the Walsh Visa Programme is complete, its reintroduction next spring will be in the light of a thorough consideration of all issues raised in the course of this year’s experience.

Mr P J Bradley: I confirm that several participants are well satisfied with the Walsh Visa Programme, especially those from the Newry and Mourne area. The uptake was not what some of us had anticipated — something similar to what happened with the Morrison Programme. Will the Minister outline his contacts with the United States and other officials regarding the Walsh Visa Programme?

Dr Sean Farren: The contacts are those mentioned in my response to the supplementary. Officials have been in regular contact with the Department of Labor, and FÁS, our co-partners in recruiting participants to the Walsh Visa Programme. On my recent visit to Washington I had a thorough discussion with representatives from the Department of Labor who are administering the programme. I visited and spoke with participants in two locations in the Washington area, and they expressed a considerable degree of satisfaction, some greater than others. Undoubtedly, in a programme of this nature, for some the experience has not lived up to expectations. It is important to remember that the Walsh Visa Programme is targeted on those who have experienced unemployment in Northern Ireland. Therefore, difficulties come into the programme as a product of those individual experiences. Some who have remained are gaining an invaluable experience, and some who have returned prematurely have brought home a positive experience. Not all come back with a negative attitude towards their experience in the United States.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s assurances. Was the drop-out rate connected to the administration of the programme by Logicon, who I understand have had the contract renewed? Given the serious problems which young people encountered earlier this year, is the Minister satisfied that these difficulties will not reoccur, and is he satisfied with Logicon’s performance?

Dr Sean Farren: We cannot guarantee that problems will not arise when a programme has many participants. We must expect some problems, either amongst the participants themselves, or as a result of the context of the strange surroundings in which they find themselves living and working.
Administration of the programme in the United States is a matter for the Department of Labor. That Department issued terms and conditions and invited companies to tender for the contract. Only two companies tendered, and the successful company was Logicon. Logicon is in regular contact with the Department of Labor and officials from the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment.
The three Government Departments involved—the Department in the Republic of Ireland that administers FÁS, my Department, which administers the Training and Employment Agency, and the Department of Labor in the United States — and Logicon have reviewed good and bad experiences from the first few months. We should remember that the project has not yet completed 12months. I assure Members that there is an ongoing overview of the programme and that it has many positive aspects. The experience that the participants have gained in different workplaces and the new skills that they have acquired and developed will be beneficial to themselves and to our developing economy.

Ms Jane Morrice: I ask the Minister to be brief in his response to the next question.

Further and Higher Education Students: Socio-Economic Profile

Mr Alban Maginness: 7. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment if he will detail the socio-economic profile of students at further and higher education establishments in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years.
(AQO295/00)

Dr Sean Farren: The socio-economic status of students in the institutes of further and higher education is, unfortunately, unavailable, as such data have not been collected hitherto. Information on the social class breakdown of students entering degree courses at Northern Ireland universities is collected through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS). It shows consistently that the majority of students — between 64% and 67% over the past fiveyears — came from the professional, intermediate and skilled non-manual groups. More than a third of new entrants — between 33% and 36% over the same period — came from the skilled manual, partly skilled and unskilled groups.

Mr Alban Maginness: The Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment should set targets in relation to the numbers of — essentially — working-class entrants in higher and further education. The figures that the Minister has produced show that participation rates in higher education are not as high as one would like. The Minister should ensure that increasing the numbers of working-class entrants to higher and further education — particularly higher education — is a central aim of his Department. Has the Minister looked at the situation in other countries to see how successful they have been in attracting a higher number of working-class students into higher education?

Dr Sean Farren: The Member’s question relates to access in this country and the experience elsewhere. With respect to the second part of the Member’s question, experiences elsewhere reflect a rather patchy situation. Members will have noted a significant report published recently in the South, which has raised concern that in spite of finance initiatives to support students in further and higher education, there has been an undesirably low level of participation by people from unskilled manual working backgrounds. Even now, the situation in the South compares unfavourably with that in Northern Ireland.

Dr Esmond Birnie: We can perhaps take some cheer from the statistics since the width of social access to our student body is probably better than that in the Republic of Ireland and England. Nevertheless, there is room for improvement, and the Minister rightly referred to that recent and interesting research carried out in Dublin by the Higher Education Authority. Does the Minister agree with one of the report’s main conclusions, namely, that an increase in grant support to students is crucial to raising access for those from unskilled and skilled manual working- class backgrounds who are underrepresented?

Dr Sean Farren: I agree that we must examine all elements of student support to determine the balance between the various options available to us. Issues related to maintenance certainly seem to be of significance and must therefore be given special attention. The question is of particular relevance given the final stages we have reached in our review of student financial support.

Mr David Ford: The Minister referred to data held on students admitted to universities in Northern Ireland. Are there any data on the social background of Northern Ireland students at universities in GreatBritain, where I suspect there is an even greater skew towards the middle classes than in local universities? Further to his response to Dr Birnie, does the Minister not agree that the whole issue of student finance has now fallen seriously behind in Northern Ireland and should be addressed, given the fact that Wales has now followed Scotland in taking the Cubie approach well ahead of us, meaning that our students are having difficulties not being experienced elsewhere?

Dr Sean Farren: Over the last five years Northern Ireland students who have gone to Great Britain to study are more likely to have come from the higher social classes than their counterparts who stay. Approximately 58% of Northern Ireland students who went to Great Britain were from the professional or intermediate classes, compared to 49% of those who stayed in Northern Ireland to study. Conversely, around 9% of Northern Ireland students who went to Great Britain were from the partly-skilled or unskilled classes, compared to around 11% of those who stayed to study in Northern Ireland.
On the second part of the question, I am not sure where the Member has been since February when I announced the terms of reference for the review of student financial support. We are taking account of what has transpired in Scotland, and we are way ahead of our colleagues in Wales, who have only recently announced that they are to undertake a similar review.

Mr David Ford: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister is now starting to respond to the second part of questions. My question was in two parts, but he answered only one.

Ms Jane Morrice: We do not take points of order during Question Time.

New Deal for Disabled People

Ms Mary Nelis: 8. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment if he will detail the number of people who signed up to the ‘New Deal for Disabled People’ option and who consequently were disallowed incapacity benefit or disability living allowance or both.
(AQO277/00)

Dr Sean Farren: I am advised that no client has been disallowed either incapacity benefit or disability living allowance due to participation on the ‘New Deal for Disabled People’ programme. Participation on the programme does not affect entitlement to either of the benefits.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his reassurance, but I have a constituent who signed up to the ‘New Deal for Disabled People’ and, two months into the programme, was disallowed her disability allowance benefit. This may be a coincidence, but I hope that no disabled person signing up to such a programme will be penalised for doing so.

Dr Sean Farren: I would welcome any information that the hon Member has in respect of constituents’ situations. I must point out, however, that entitlement to incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance and disability living allowance is subject to a regular review of claimants’ circumstances. Review dates are set by the Social Security Agency and are not affected by clients’ participation on the programme. Decisions taken at reviews may have an effect on participants’ benefits.

Department’s Relationships with Republic Counterparts

Mr John Dallat: 9. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment what steps he is taking to develop North/South relationships between his Department and those in the Republic of Ireland.
(AQO288/00)

Dr Sean Farren: In the context of the North/South Ministerial Council I have pursued areas of common interest through the Trade and Business Development Body. I have had a number of meetings on areas of mutual interest with Irish Ministers in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Department of Education and Science and with the director general of FÁS. I have also attended and participated in a range of events involving higher education, professional and training institutes in the Republic.

Mr John Dallat: Does the Minister accept that closer links between the North and South are vital to the future economic well-being of people in both parts of Ireland? Will he give an undertaking that bureaucracy and red tape, where it exists, will be removed to ensure that no obstacles stand in the way of students or workers who wish to move between jurisdictions?

Dr Sean Farren: The Member can be assured that any inhibitions to the mobility he refers to will be looked at and examined in order to have them removed. The considerable degree of mobility with respect to workers at all levels is evidenced by the very few, if any, restrictions on people moving from the North to the South, or vice versa, for employment purposes.
A visit to our universities and to many of our colleges of further education will reveal varying levels of participation by students from the South. The same is true, particularly at university level, with respect to Northern students and Southern institutions. I have been encouraged by the openness evident within my Department, and with our counterparts in the South, towards improved forms of co-operation.

Social Development

Public-Sector Homes (Rural Areas)

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: 1. asked the Minister for Social Development what plans he has to improve the conditions of public-sector homes in rural Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
(AQO263/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: This question really is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, whose chief executive has advised me that, until recently, the Housing Executive defined rural properties as those located outside the Londonderry City Council area and the Belfast urban area, which is defined as including the Belfast, Carrickfergus, Newtonabbey, Lisburn, Castlereagh and North Down Council areas. Within this definition the Housing Executive planned improvement schemes for five years commencing in April 2000, and covering just over 7,000 of its properties. These involve either multi-element improvements, which may include a range of improvements, or single-element improvements. The latter involve specific upgrading: the fitting of kitchens, central heating installation, or major adaptation work such as property extensions. In addition, as part of its rural housing policy, within the next three to five years, the Housing Executive intends to make improvements to 800 of its rural cottages which still require them.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Perhaps I may probe a little further and ask the Minister about the levels of rural unfitness in public-sector housing across Northern Ireland. Can the Minister tell the House what plans he and his Department have devised to tackle levels of rural unfitness in public-sector houses? Can he also assure the House that he will make the issue of tackling rural unfitness a priority for his Department?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I come from a rural constituency. For that reason, among others, I can assure Members that rural unfitness gives me considerable concern. In County Fermanagh, for instance, the last survey showed that rural unfitness there runs at 17·1%. We hope that on the publication of the next report on rural unfitness, there will be a substantial fall in that toll. I can assure the Member that my Department and I take rural unfitness very seriously, and we will be devoting our energy to it in the coming weeks and months. The 1996 House Conditions Survey recorded just under 23,000 unfit dwellings in rural areas, excluding Belfast, Londonderry and other towns. This represents some 52% of all unfit properties. In 1996, rural unfitness was recorded at 12·1% — a reduction from 17·2% in 1991. We are better off then than equivalent areas in the rest of the UK. We take little comfort from that, because we are still striving to ensure that we deal adequately with rural unfitness. My Department and I will be giving much time and attention to this issue in the future.

Mr John Fee: Can the Minister review the existing policy of his Department with a view to funding primarily multi- element improvement schemes at the expense of single- element schemes? The effect is that the queue for much- needed improvements in the rural public housing stock is extremely long and is getting longer. In many of these houses, simple improvements to a kitchen or an electrical system may be the overriding priority. Would it not make more sense to do one scheme now and, perhaps, complete the other house improvements further down the line?

Mr Maurice Morrow: Most unfit rural housing is in the private sector, not the social housing sector. I want the Assembly to be clear about that. I listened carefully to what the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr Fee) said: it makes a lot of sense. That point will be given careful consideration when the Department decides on its priorities, and I undertake to provide the Member with a more comprehensive answer at that stage.

Mr David McClarty: Does the Minister recall a recent statement in which he acknowledged that much still needs to be done on housing? Furthermore, does the Minister accept that nothing needs attention more than public-sector rural accommodation? The Executive Committee’s decision to commit an extra £27·3million to social development gives him the opportunity to effect real improvements. Has the Minister’s party given him permission to remain in office long enough to make a difference to rural housing?

Mr Maurice Morrow: That question has more to do with politics than housing, but, nevertheless, I will make an honest endeavour to answer it. The question of my position as Minister is not part of my brief — the Member should address that question to others. I will be here for as long as my party leadership decides, be that a long or a short time. That is the best answer that I can give. Decisions on my departure are not in my hands, but I am ready to go or stay.
I am aware of the statement that I made. I want to emphasise again that I have a keen awareness of housing issues. I was a member of a district council for 27years and an estate agent. I believe that a good home is not a privilege but a basic human right. I intend to work as hard as I can to ensure that everybody in Northern Ireland has a good home to live in. The Member for East Londonderry (Mr McClarty) can go to bed content tonight, knowing that, in this case, his principles and mine are similar.

Social Exclusion: Interdepartmental Co-operation

Mrs Eileen Bell: 2. asked the Minister for Social Development if he will detail his plans to co-operate with the Minister of Education on the issue of social exclusion.
(AQO287/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: My Department works closely with other Departments, including the Department of Education, across a number of areas relating to the issue of social exclusion.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I thank the Minister for his brief statement. Does the Minister agree that social disadvantage can have an adverse effect on the education of vulnerable pupils and that it should be addressed as a priority both by his Department and the Department of Education?

Mr Maurice Morrow: The answer to that is yes. However, education is not my field.

Mrs Eileen Bell: On a point of order—[Interruption]

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. If the Member wishes to raise a point of order, she can do so at the end of the Minister’s Question Time.

Mr John Dallat: I welcome the Minister’s assurance that he co-operates with the Department of Education. Will he also assure the House that there are no other individuals or groups on his exclusion list? Can he explain why he refused to attend a recent strategy launch by Limavady Town Centre Forum, which is made up of community groups, local councillors and a plethora of individuals?

Ms Jane Morrice: That question seems unrelated to the statement. Does the Minister wish to respond?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I do not see the relevance of the question to what I am here to deal with today. However, perhaps the Member knows more about why I was not there than anyone else.

Mrs Joan Carson: How many meetings has the Minister had at ministerial level with his counterparts in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly to deal with the issue of social exclusion?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I have made attempts to meet with my counterparts in England, and they cancelled the meetings — I did not. Lest the Member go home and lose a lot of sleep about that, may I emphasise that there is nothing of any significance in that; it was due to timetable problems across the water. I was ready to fly to London to have the necessary meetings, and I am ready to do so again.

Housing Executive Rents

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 4. asked the Minister for Social Development what steps he is taking to keep Housing Executive rents low for those who choose not to buy their home.
(AQO285/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: My overall objective is to set a rent affordable to tenants on low income, while at the same time meeting the Housing Executive’s income requirements to enable it to maintain that accommodation to standards acceptable to the tenants. I made a bid for additional funding for the Housing Executive under the spending review 2000. Only some of those bids were met, but I will continue to argue the strongest case possible for the proper resourcing of maintenance funding for Northern Ireland Housing Executive stock so that rents can remain at affordable levels.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: Will the Minister give an assurance today that any rent increase for 2001-02 will not exceed the rate of inflation?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I can give no such assurance. Suffice it to say that in keeping with my party’s policy and with my own interest in Housing Executive tenants, I can assure the House that rents will be kept to a minimum. Also, I have met with the Committee on a number of occasions — indeed as recently as last Thursday. I put this issue to its members again and informed them that I have not yet decided the level of rent increases. I am waiting for the Committee to tell me what level of rent increase it would find appropriate, and I am assured that it is currently considering the matter. I look forward to receiving a reply soon, maybe even this week.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I suggest that the Minister inform the Assembly of the shortfall in the Housing Executive budget which would result if the proposal from the Member for Strangford were implemented. Does the Minister agree that if programmes for roomheater replacements or kitchen improvements were to be cut as a result of this proposal, the Member for Strangford would be the first to squeal about it?

Mr Maurice Morrow: The Member has dealt with a number of issues. I will try to give some figures to indicate the impact of increasing rents at certain levels. The physical consequences of a GDP plus 2% rent increase’s not being imposed would be as follows: if we froze rents at their existing level, a loss of £13·6 million would be sustained. That would result in no new starts in the year 2000 and the deferral of 1,000 multi-element improvement (MEI) schemes.
If we increased rents in line with GDP, which we are told we must calculate at 2·5%, a revenue shortfall of £7·8 million would result. There would be no new starts in 2000, and 400 MEI schemes would be deferred. At GDP plus 1%, the shortfall would be £5·4 million, and there would be no new starts in 2000. At GDP plus 2%, the shortfall would be £3·1 million, and there would be a choice between 2000 planned replacements or 1500 MEI schemes, but not both.
I trust that those figures clearly illustrate the impact that that will have on the housing scheme, particularly to the Member who said that the rate of rent increases should be below that of inflation. I ask the House to reflect on those figures and think about them carefully, because it is not a simple equation.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat. The Minister rightly said that he met the Social Development Committee on a number of occasions on this issue. However, he said that he asked the Committee for its view on how much rent should be increased by. Will the Minister clarify that it is he who makes those decisions and not the Committee?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I have not asked the Committee to make any decisions for me. I have asked it for advice, to identify its priorities and what level of increase it would like to see. I may or may not agree with the Committee’s views, but I assure the House that those views will be taken into consideration before any decision is made on any level of rent increase. I will take the decision. I will not ask the Committee to make my decisions for me. I am ready to make the decision, but it is only courteous to ask the Committee for its views and take those views into consideration.

Winter Fuel Payment

Mr Roy Beggs: 5. asked the Minister for Social Development if he will detail the number of eligible people who have yet to apply for the winter fuel payment, and what steps he is taking to encourage uptake of the payment.
(AQO270/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: Some 285,000 people in Northern Ireland aged 60 and over are entitled to a winter fuel payment this year. The first payments go out this week. The majority of eligible people — about 250,000 — will receive their payment automatically. Although the Social Security Agency (SSA) has contacted the 38,000 people who need to apply, 13,000 people have not yet submitted a claim. Press advertisements were used in April, July and September to maximise the uptake of the scheme. Further advertising will take place soon.

Mr Roy Beggs: Does the Minister agree that the majority of those people not claiming their entitlement are males over the age of 60 who are still in employment? Does he agree that they could easily be identified if information were shared between Government Departments? What plans does the Minister have to develop links and share data with other Departments so that benefit entitlements can be automatically established?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I cannot say with assurance that the majority of those not claiming are males over the age of 60, but the Member may be right. It is important that all those who are entitled to benefit get the benefit.
With regard to sharing information with other Departments, I am sure that the Member is aware that we are presently in the process of reorganising. The ONE Scheme, under which many of the agencies will co-ordinate their efforts and information will become effective soon. I do not know if that will happen before this payment is made. The £200 payment was announced only last Thursday, and the legislation came into effect last Saturday. Some of the cheques will be sent this week. My Department has reacted very quickly and is working flat out to ensure that everyone who is on benefit and who is entitled to this payment will get their £200 before Christmas. I am sorry that I cannot give the same assurance to those aged over 60, but an honest effort will be made.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I thank the Minister for his assurances that the winter fuel payments will be issued as soon as possible. Will he continue to make representations to the Chancellor on the level of winter fuel payment? While the payment has increased from £150 to £200, and while pensions have recently been uprated, will the Minister continue to make strong representations to Treasury and Whitehall Ministers on the need to restore the link between the rise in pensions and earnings? Will he continue to press for the winter fuel payment to be kept at an appropriate level to deal with the yearly winter crisis?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I am sure the Member will be the first to recognise that those issues are, by and large, parity issues with the rest of the UnitedKingdom. Nevertheless, I assure him that the Department for Social Development and the Social Security Agency will not be found wanting in delivering a service to the people who need it most.
I also assure him that NorthernIreland will be kept on a par with the rest of the UnitedKingdom on levels of future benefits and pensions.

Mr Derek Hussey: I welcome the Minister’s comments on the efforts to ensure that winter fuel payments are dispersed as quickly as possible. I am sure he will agree that energy efficiency is also of great importance to those who require winter fuel payments. Will he update the House on the plans for implementing both, and will he assure Members that there will be a positive approach to them, particularly for those in rural areas?

Mr Maurice Morrow: With regard to winter fuel payments and fuel poverty, I recently launched a pilot scheme on domestic energy efficiency in Aughnacloy and Darkley. The scheme will be launched in April2001. I believe it is an excellent scheme and will go a long way to tackling fuel poverty in NorthernIreland. I assure the Member that we have placed much emphasis on this scheme and that it will deal with the matters that he has raised today. I will supply the Member with more detailed information.

Public Health: Interdepartmental Co-operation

Mr David Ford: 6. asked the Minister for Social Development if he will outline his plans to co-operate with the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety on public- health issues.
(AQO286/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: Over some months an interdepartmental group, led by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and involving officials from my Department and others has been working on a new strategy for improving the health of people in Northern Ireland. I understand the strategy will be published for consultation later this year.

Mr David Ford: Even though the Minister was sufficiently rude to my Colleague on the topic of education, I am delighted that he at least acknowledges his responsibilities in this area, but I remind him that the question actually asked about his co-operation with the Minister of Health. Given MrP Robinson’s earlier comments on the need for joined-up government, and since Ministers carry responsibility for housing executive rents, is it not up to the Minister to co-operate with other Ministers in urgent matters of public concern, rather than leave them entirely to officials?

Mr Maurice Morrow: The Member has missed the point on this, but I will take him through it as best I can. First, I have no plans whatsoever to meet the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. I cannot be more direct than that. With regard to the matter he is hinting at, although he could be more explicit, the RUC is the main component in the drive against drugs. It is notable that the RUC has been excluded by the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. I thought that would have concerned Mr Ford as much as it concerns me.

Mr Peter Robinson: Instead of meeting the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will the Minister take the advice of an earlier questioner and meet his counterparts in the Scottish or Welsh cabinets? Does he recognise that, according to the Hansard of 10 November, by doing so he would be ahead of eight other Ministers who have not met their counterparts in Scotland or Wales?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I listened carefully to what Mr P Robinson said. Rather than interpret it as a question, I will take it as sound advice. It is something that I will pursue in the coming weeks and months. Then I will be able to say to all and sundry that I have had all those meetings. There are those who wish to direct me down the Dublin road, but I am not prepared to go along that route.

Ms Jane Morrice: Time is up, unless there are further questions.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: Will the Minister encourage the Housing Executive to check its dwellings in radon- affected areas and take action to eradicate any health risks? Radon gas is the second-greatest cause of lung cancer in Northern Ireland.

Ms Jane Morrice: That question is not relevant to the one that was tabled.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: It is a public-health issue.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Minister wishes to respond.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I did not hear the start of the question, but I will deal with it generally. If there is a threat to anyone’s health as a result of any situation that arises in the social housing sector, I take that very seriously. It would be a matter that I would want to deal with. If the Member writes to me about a particular case that he would like dealt with, I will certainly pursue it on his behalf.

Rev William McCrea: Public health and safety is greatly endangered by many of our constituents in socially deprived families throughout the Province in that they are not able to get rid of their Economy 7 heating. Can the Minister ensure that the domestic energy efficiency scheme is brought in as quickly as possible? He has said that that will happen in April, but will it begin in one particular area, or will it occur throughout the Province simultaneously?

Mr Maurice Morrow: It is our intention, as the Member said, to introduce this scheme in April 2001. I hope that it will go right across the Province and tackle fuel poverty as it arises. I have already said that we have launched pilot schemes at Aughnacloy and Darkley.

Mr Roy Beggs: Earlier, a Member mentioned the need for co-operation on drugs issues. Does the Minister agree that given the experience in Edinburgh and Glasgow, it would be very relevant for him to visit the Scottish Parliament and undertake discussions with both the Strathclyde and Lothian police forces?
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Mr Maurice Morrow: I do intend to take the route that Mr Peter Robinson suggested earlier. I do see significance in speaking to my counterparts, in particular in areas like Edinburgh. I am confident that when I go to Scotland or Wales and discuss this with my counterparts there, the police force will be in the driving seat and in the vanguard of tackling this problem. I am certain that the Member will agree with me on that.

Mr Alex Attwood: I think it is interesting that the Minister has various meetings planned with Welsh and Scottish Ministers in the months ahead. Given the frequency with which the Ministers on the DUP change sides, months ahead is somewhat optimistic on his part. Since he has not yet met with the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, is not co-operating with the North/South structures and has not met with the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, there seems to be a declining number of people whom he is speaking to.
His colleague on Belfast City Council, Cllr Eric Smyth, has been in the lead in Belfast in promoting anti-drugs activity and awareness. Cllr Smyth has participated in a European anti-drugs conference and has gone to Dublin to participate with colleagues in anti-drug strategies in the city of Dublin. In the next few months there will be a conference in Belfast that Eric Smyth will be a sponsor of —

Mr Speaker: Order. What is the Member’s question?

Mr Alex Attwood: The point is that if his colleague —

Mr Speaker: No, the question —

Mr Alex Attwood: Does the Minister agree that his colleague in Belfast City Council is participating on an all-Ireland basis in anti-drugs awareness activities? Should he, as a Minister representing this Executive Assembly —

Mr Speaker: Order, order. The time is up, and the Minister will have to respond to the Member in writing. You have a point of order, Mr Dodds?

Mr Nigel Dodds: I thank the Member for his party political broadcast on behalf of the DUP.

Mr Speaker: I have no doubt that the Member concerned will use it on his election leaflets. Order.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Mr Speaker, is it in order for a member of the SDLP to electioneer blatantly for the DUP?

Mr Speaker: It is entirely in order, but I am not sure that it is wise for either party.

Programme for Government

Debate resumed on motion:
That this Assembly notes the Executive Committee’s proposed Programme for Government; notes that it will guide the public spending plans for 2001-02 in the Budget; notes that the Programme for Government will be presented for the approval of the Assembly in the New Year, embracing public service agreements for all Departments. [The First and Deputy First Ministers]

Dr Sean Farren: The focus of this session of the debate is on education, training, the economy and the infrastructure. This covers two of the Executive’s priorities, investing in education and skills and securing a competitive economy. These are key priorities to contributing to a prosperous society, which is part of the Executive’s shared vision for the future.
Education and training have a central role in the programme, not only for social and community development but as an engine for our economy. While a high proportion of our young people achieve good examination results, there are also major challenges for us, as the draft programme highlights. The increasing focus on knowledge as a key element of economic growth emphasises the importance of getting our education and skills right. A high proportion of young people are underachievers in school, and they should be given every opportunity to succeed through access to quality higher and further education.
Within our existing work force there is a significant population with few or no formal qualifications and with poor standards of literacy and numeracy. We must continue to address areas of high unemployment. We must break the cycle of unemployment, making sure that we do not allow those leaving school with few qualifications to be caught in the unskilled trap for their future careers. As the programme highlights, these are areas we will focus on.
The selection review and decisions on the future structures of post-primary education, together with the outcome of the review of student financial support at further and higher education levels, will clearly be major vocal points of debate. The Executive have identified a wide range of other actions to underline its commitment to investment in education and skills at different levels: the provision of one year of pre-school education for every child; support for underachieving schools; the development of technology in public libraries; and the piloting of a new training programme for adults with basic literacy and numeracy problems.
In the chapter headed ‘Securing a Competitive Economy,’ we emphasise that a firm basis for economic growth requires the close co-ordination of a wide range of policies and Departments. We must ensure that we have the physical infrastructure that business needs. We need to create the right conditions for economic growth by promoting competitiveness, enterprise, innovation and creativity. We plan, for example, to stimulate the private sector to increase the level and scope of research and development and to implement a small business strategy with a view to achieving better co-ordination and effectiveness of local enterprise support.
We must also work to make Northern Ireland more attractive for inward investors and tourists. We need a competitive location for investment, while at the same time ensuring that sufficient investment is directed to areas of disadvantage and high unemployment. It is also essential that we have the appropriate infrastructure for competitive regional development, and meet the needs of individuals as well. We will agree, therefore, on a regional development strategy and a regional transport strategy.
We will ensure that Northern Ireland has a world-class telecommunications infrastructure, and on that basis we will promote Northern Ireland as a world-class centre for e-commerce. We also need to consider the most appropriate energy infrastructure to help improve business competitiveness and create greater consumer choice at affordable prices. In striving to improve the economy we must be aware of the difficulties that have been experienced in rural areas. The Executive propose to develop a programme to modernise and diversify the structure of farming and assist fishery areas.
In taking this agenda for developing our economy and infrastructure forward, we must also ensure the protection and enhancement of the environment. We will, therefore, produce a strategy for sustainable development. This will cover a number of Departments and the district councils, because we have to build sustainability into all relevant policy areas including the development of public attitudes.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Sean Farren: Two more sentences. I have attempted —

Mr Speaker: I regret that the Minister’s time is now up.

Dr Sean Farren: Thank you for drawing my attention to that —

Mr Speaker: I must ask him to resume his seat.

Dr Sean Farren: Having completed an outline of the agenda, I am very happy to resume my seat.

Mr Jim Wilson: I welcome the draft Programme for Government, and I am pleased that we have the opportunity to discuss it in detail today. The Belfast Agreement has brought many benefits to the people we represent. At last, we have locally elected representatives producing a programme that we have the opportunity and resources to enact. At last, those who provide government in this Province can be held to account by the electorate. We can truly say that, through this programme, we are delivering accountable democracy to Northern Ireland.
I commend the Executive on their role in guaranteeing that delivery. I applaud the commitment to a better society. My party and I will continue to do all that we can to help. However, the delivery of accountable democracy also requires that those of us who might loosely be referred to as Back-Benchers can and must criticise constructively where we find fault. I am reasonably satisfied that the draft programme will start to undo the damage caused to this country by direct rule. Having said that, I must also say that in some areas the programme does not do enough to address the years of under- investment, poor planning and general disregard that characterised long-distance Government.
Notwithstanding the announcement of increased funding for water and sewerage, not enough has been done to bring that vital area of infrastructure into the Programme for Government. It would be easy to single out the present Minister for criticism; he has not been in the job long and will soon have to hand over to the next man — or woman — in advance of the Westminster elections. We look forward to seeing who is next for a game of Ministers. Of course, it would help regional development generally if the Minister were fully committed to the portfolio. It would also help if the Minister were to carry through to the Executive the work his party is engaged in with the rest of us at departmental Committee level.
I acknowledge that addressing the direct rule years will be hard, and nowhere more so than in dealing with the Water Service. The damage was done over many years and cannot be undone by one Programme for Government. However, I regret that the opportunity to deal radically with the massive problems that we have with water and sewerage services has been missed. Rather than spend money on patching up an ailing infrastructure, we should aim at a complete overhaul.
Chapter 1 of the draft programme states
"The provision of infrastructure and major public services such as public transport, roads, water and sewerage are essential for the social and economic well-being of the region".
I agree with that. It also states
"Serious deficiencies in our infrastructure assets have been identified as a result of years of under-investment".
I agree with that too. The document continues
"This is giving rise to real public-safety and public-health concerns. We need to act now if we are to reverse the unacceptable deterioration in the quality and reliability of our infrastructure and to comply with European Directives".
Although the problem of underinvestment is identified, the draft programme contains little evidence of commitment to address it. There are some commitments to improvement. The commitment to achieve a 20% reduction in the 1996 level of high- and medium- severity water pollution incidents is welcome, as is the commitment to eliminate the backlog in implementing European Directives on air, land and water. I am pleased with the commitment to achieve 80% compliance with the waste water treatment works discharge standards set out by the Environment and Heritage Service. I trust that, before too long, we will achieve 100%.
The Executive must appreciate the importance of a good water and sewerage infrastructure; it is as good an indicator as any of our social and economic conditions. My constituency is a pleasant and attractive area, made up mainly of small towns and villages and surrounded by countryside. We do not live at the foot of enormous mountains or beside the banks of broad rivers, but, in south Antrim, we are beginning to expect that rainfall that is anything more than moderate will lead to flooding. The flooding occurs because the Water Service infrastructure is below standard.
The level of rainfall in Northern Ireland in October was among the lowest in the United Kingdom, but householders still had to deal with water seeping into their homes for the second time in two months. In an area of relatively mild rainfall, we should not have such a situation.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I wish to concentrate on education. In order to attain equality in the present education system, we need to look at the targets set out in the Programme for Government and examine how to turn those targets into achievable objectives. How can we do that without adequate funding? Feedback from public meetings suggests that the overwhelming majority of the public feels that the 11-plus ought to be scrapped. Undoubtedly, the examination places pupils under severe pressure and is counter-productive and damaging in that it increases class bias and leads to social disadvantage, low self-esteem and demotivation. Preparation for the examination dominates the curriculum in P6 and in P7. Teaching is totally focused on preparation for the 11-plus, and attention is directed away from areas that would be more beneficial in the preparation for secondary education.
The issue of the future of the 11-plus cannot be viewed in isolation. The structure of our education system must change radically to meet the needs of society today, as well as the needs of the future. Equality of opportunity must be built into the system. We must tackle underachievement; I welcome the Minister’s commitment to do so. I commend the allocation of funds to help children with special needs. That will enable them to enter mainstream education without having to face the terrible bureaucracy that they have faced in the past. For many of those children the issue is not just physical access to schools and classrooms but access to all the services in the schools. We must ensure that they are included, not isolated.
We need equality of treatment for our rural schools and the retention of those schools, which play such a vital role for those who live in rural communities. Pupil numbers in rural schools are dropping, and the reasons for that must be examined. Decisions must be made about what can be done to revitalise those schools in order to extend equality of opportunity, accessibility and choice and to raise standards.
School transport in rural areas needs a complete overhaul. It is neither fair nor realistic to expect young children to walk two miles along country roads, often with bad lighting and no footpaths. Children’s safety is of paramount importance, and transport is an essential element.
On school transport in general, I would advocate an approach that would ensure training for drivers and escorts, both on buses and in taxis, and particularly for those working with children who have special needs.
While attending an Education Committee meeting recently I was glad to hear the Minister’s statement underlining his commitment to the three Rs and to what he termed "the four Ens" — encouragement, enjoyment, entitlement and enthusiasm. I hope that other initiatives and those proposed in the Programme for Government to tackle bullying and behavioural problems will be strengthened and that we will soon see a positive outcome from those and from other vital programmes currently running in our education system.
We must ensure that we target social need and direct funding towards areas where it will benefit children in the greatest need. Targeting social need must be people-based, not geographically based as it is now. We need a second-level education that gives the same weight to vocational education as it does to academic education, and I hope that we will soon move away from perpetual testing to perpetual teaching.
In conclusion, I hope that equality and social inclusion will remain high on the Government’s agenda. The Department of Education and, indeed, the Assembly itself, should be proactive in seeking solutions that will redress the balance and provide equality of opportunity for the whole population.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: My remarks concern agriculture. First, the draft Programme for Government commits the Executive routinely to consider the rural dimension by rural proofing during the making and implementation of policy. We do not know what rural proofing is. We questioned the Deputy Secretary at the Department of Agriculture, and he could not define rural proofing. He said that we would have to wait until January 2001 before the Minister, or anybody, would know what rural proofing means. How will the other Departments co-operate with rural proofing when even the Department responsible for it does not know what it means? This causes great concern to members of the Agriculture Committee and to me as its Chairperson. We believe that proper rural proofing is necessary and that steps should be taken right across the board which should benefit those living in rural districts and especially the farming community.
We are also concerned about the programme to modernise and diversify the structure of farming, yet we are amazed that there are no action points listed on how this is to be achieved. We need to know the steps proposed.
We know that neither the Minister herself nor the Department is eager to bring in a pension scheme for farmers and that that may not happen. What about new people coming into farming? Is it not possible for those who have served their time in farming to see new people entering with certain advantages so that those older people can retire? Why is the United Kingdom not to have a pension for farmers, as other parts of the European Union do, and especially for those who are in dire straits because of debts which resulted mainly from the BSE crisis and the tragedy in our pig industry. I hope the Minister will be able to enlighten us, because those issues lie right at the heart of this matter, and they need to be addressed.
I hope that by January the Minister and her Department will be able to give us a clear definition of rural development and that they will give us to understand how she will communicate the usefulness of rural development to every other Department. That is going to be a big business. Sir RegEmpey is sitting in the Chamber, and I am sure that he has some views on the matter. He ought to have views because of his responsibility for industry in rural districts. We need to have information on that big issue so that the next time we debate the matter it will not be in the dark but in the full light of candid definition.

Mr Barry McElduff: Ba mhaith liom béim a leagan ar fhreagrachtaí na Roinne i gcúrsaí oideachais sa doiciméad seo. Mar bhall den Choiste Oideachais, ba mhaith liom comhghairdeas a dhéanamh leis an dá Aire, Máirtín MacAonghusa agus Seán Ó Farracháin. Is orthu atá an fhreagracht tosaíocht a dhéanamh den oideachas sa doiciméad seo.
I must begin by commending the inclusive approach adopted by the Executive in drafting the Programme for Government. At its root is the imperative of eliminating the democratic deficit which pre-dated partition and has characterised the history of the Six-County state since its inception in the early 1920s. However, I share the frustration of others who have addressed the debate on the dishonest tactics of the First Minister in plotting the collapse of the political institutions, while most other Ministers were dotting every i and crossing every t in the Programme for Government. That lends an air of unreality to the programme and instils public scepticism; it is regrettable insofar as it flies in the face of the notion of a shared vision.
As to the content of the programme — yes, it is aspirational; yes, it is ambitious in some regards; and no, it is not nearly radical enough.
As a member of the Education Committee I am pleased to note that investment in education and skills has been identified as one of the five Executive priorities. It is only right that education should enjoy, and continue to enjoy, such priority. The Ministers, MrMcGuinness and DrFarren, deserve commendation for their efforts and future support in sustaining this type of agenda.
I welcome the general commitments to raising educational standards for all, cherishing each child equally. I also welcome the commitment to seriously address the issues of low and underachievement. Underachievement is a specific area for North/South focus and co-operation.
The document highlights the central role of education in securing an inclusive society and a strong and vibrant economy and in promoting lifelong learning and healthier lives for everyone.
As Ms Lewsley pointed out, the programme invites ongoing redefinition of our educational objectives. We have heard of the three "Rs"; now the "Ens" are coming into the debate — encouragement; enjoyment; enlightenment and enthusiasm. I welcome the swing away from solely academic achievement.
Specifically, I welcome the commitment to implementing new viability criteria to help promote Irish- medium education by the year 2001. That sector has suffered neglect for years, decades and centuries. The Irish language was officially frowned upon in our education system, and it is time for it to take its rightful place. I await the outcome of the consultation on education through the medium of Irish. People in the cities, towns and villages are also awaiting that.
Similarly, the objective of expanding and enriching pre-school provision to benefit every child for at least one year is extremely important. The deadline of June 2001 has been set for the completion of the review of post-primary education. It is timely to speak about that matter now, as our young people sat the first section of the 11-plus examination last Friday, and the second section will take place on 24 November. I hope that those children are among the last to undergo the 11-plus, which has been very damaging.
Finally, the emphasis on education as the engine for the economy is very pertinent. We need to help equip our young people with the skills and qualifications they need to take their place in the modern economy. I recently spoke to an official from the Sligo County Enterprise Board who told me that that was a key ingredient of the Celtic tiger. Similarly, I welcome the emphasis on knowledge-based economy. Let us hope the Celtic tiger gets his paws wet in the North soon.

Mr Speaker: I call Mrs Bell.

Mrs Eileen Bell: Mr Speaker — [Interruption]

Mr James Leslie: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It concerns the application of the equality principle to your selection of parties and their speaking order. In calling MrsBell to speak, you will have called 50% of the Alliance Party. It seems to me that at this stage, by the same token, we should have heard from a dozen Members of my party and the SDLP, 10 from the DUP and nine from Sinn Féin.

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Leslie ought to know that on a point of order it is not open to him to question the Speaker about such matters on the Floor of the House. If he wishes to do so in the proper manner, he is entirely free to do so, but it is not in order for him to raise a question of that kind here.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I have to say, Mr Speaker, that we have quality — perhaps not quantity but quality.
I note the draft Programme for Government with some disappointment. The title of the introduction, ‘Making a Difference’, would be more credible if there really had been an attempt to get away from the dangerously traditional, two-communities concept. I also hoped that the parties which are not in the Executive could have had more direct input, other than as members of Committees, but perhaps that will come.
However, I totally agree that we need significantly to improve the educational successes of so many of our young people. It is also encouraging that the need for an holistic perspective on education involving a number of Departments has been recognised — although someone should talk to the Minister for Social Development who appears reluctant to work with the Health and Education Departments on the effects, for example, of social disadvantage on children. Targeting social need is a matter for all Departments, and there must be joined-up Government on such issues.
I am glad that education is included throughout the draft programme and involves different Departments. I hope that all Departments will take note. I can only hope that investing in education and skills will take a high priority, given that there are other competing policy issues. In the long term, society will benefit only if there is a vibrant, efficient, accessible and affordable education sector for people from early years to adulthood, and for some time beyond. It is to be welcomed that pre-school education has been expanded so that, by 2003, every child will have one year of pre-school education. This is another very important part of our education sector.
The 11-plus — or selection — review must be comprehensive so that real and informed decisions can be made. As one who sat, or attempted to sit, an 11-plus exam last week, I have nothing but admiration for those children who have done it. I would like it to be scrapped as soon as possible, because I would not want to do it again.
Other actions promised, such as tackling disruptive behaviour and bullying, and information and communications technology training will also help to improve the situation in the education sector. Improving access to all levels of education will also need realistic and effective decisions taken regarding such things as student fees and loans. I also suggest that in this series of actions, the equality priority should cause the viability criteria for integrated and Irish-medium education to be reconsidered. I know that a Member who spoke earlier has welcomed the viability criteria consultation, and it is right that Irish- medium education should be included. However, in the existing consultation criteria for integrated education, there is talk about the religious determination, which openly discriminates — [Interruption]
Mr Speaker, I ask for a bit of quiet; I am being distracted by those on my left.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mrs Eileen Bell: In the criteria for integrated education in the consultation document, the religious determination that each school needs in order to qualify is mentioned. That discriminates openly against children and parents who, quite properly, do not wish to be labelled as one or the other. It is regrettable, but integrated education is barely mentioned, as is Irish-medium education. I hope that will be rectified once the criteria are agreed on.
I note that children with special educational and/or physical difficulties get only a scant mention. In fact, the document does not refer in any great detail to children generally. Therefore I call once again for a children’s commissioner so that education and other areas to do with children are given priority. I would be pleased if the Children’s Fund that has recently been set up were increased to allow for basic literacy and numeracy teaching in primary schools and at other levels in education.
It is also essential that the number of university places in Northern Ireland be increased, possibly aided by a degree of financial input from the private sector. That has already started, but I hope that it continues, and continues well, so that all stages of the education process — academic and vocational — can flow freely with young people acquiring the skills and qualifications needed to realise their potential. A good pre-school education, effective primary school conditions and a second-level system that caters for all pupils are desirable.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the time is up.

Mr Boyd Douglas: I wish to address specifically section 5 of the Executive’s Programme for Government. First, I welcome the proposals for public transport and for the maintenance and renewal of roads. Telecommunications are vital for a vibrant economy, both rural and urban, but transport and the telecommunications infrastructure must be balanced to deliver efficiently the extra product gained through improved telecommunication links.
We must improve the rail network to carry more of our output from the Province. That would increase access to markets and help reduce, if not minimise, the amount of large trucks on our roads. They contribute greatly to polluting the air and to congestion.
I am glad to see that the work on the road network, as a result of the Chancellor’s announcement in 1998, is to begin. Those projects, which include the improvement of single and dual carriageways, are necessary to provide efficient links throughout the Province. I come from the north-west and I appreciate greatly, as will my Colleagues from the area, the fact that the proposed Toome bypass is underway and on course for completion.
This will expedite trade and travel on the Londonderry to Belfast route that are so vital at present for workers and traders in the north-west. I also welcome the consideration being given to new funding sources. We must encourage private-public partnerships with appropriate regulation to ensure that the taxpayers and consumers get the best value. Private concerns can often run the business of government better, as privatisation in recent years has demonstrated. However, we must always ensure that concerns are properly and adequately policed so that they do not become private monopolies.
The next references are to energy infrastructure. Although, as the programme states, our energy market is relatively small, we need to improve access to various energy sources for the more remote areas of the Province. People in rural areas are restricted almost exclusively to oil and electricity to meet their energy needs, and both are rapidly rising in price. The oil costs — and the Assembly has already debated this — are extraordinary and have a knock-on effect on electricity prices.
A north-west gas pipeline would benefit greatly the main towns of Coleraine and Limavady in my constituency. It would offer more choice, flexibility and, it is to be hoped, cost savings to both the domestic and business consumers who could avail of the development. It would also help with inward investment in the north-west, as energy needs can take up a large element of the cost base of intensive business.
I welcome the aim to eliminate the backlog of planning applications. Planning problems are a sore point with many constituents, and shortening the backlog will be of help. However, while I welcome this development of long-term planning strategies, we should make the Planning Service more open, and more acceptable, to the general public.
The initiation of a process to prepare a regional planning policy statement for the countryside in 2001-02 must be expedited, as many rural areas are becoming denuded of their inhabitants as a result of planning applications being refused. Many farmers’ sons cannot build a modest house on their farm because of planning regulations, while others can build in exposed areas, almost willy-nilly, with the blessing of the planners. Where is the sense in that? The Programme for Government wishes to keep farmers in rural areas, but no one helps drive them out more than the planners.
Finally, I want to address the issues of rural regeneration and tourism. I welcome the policy of rural proofing because the rural community has often been neglected as far as development is concerned. We need to support rural dwellers, including farmers, in addressing the economic and social problems that are encountered.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member’s time is up.

Mr James Leslie: One of these days we will have a debate on the principle of equity within the concept of equality. I will leave that for another day. I would like to address a few — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: As the Member knows, he is free to put a motion down on the No Day Named list and to lobby his Whip to get it onto the published list.

Mr James Leslie: Indeed.
I want to say something about the economic growth section of the programme, but I first want to comment on remarks made earlier by MrPeterRobinson about cross-border bodies and the North/South apparatus generally. To summarise, he said that much of the content was rather woolly and imprecise. He is entirely correct. He could have added that they are full of contradictions and contain aspirations, particularly on matters of competition. Common sense would tell people that these cannot be delivered in practice. That is the way I want my cross-border bodies. They may have political value in certain quarters, but they do not have any constitutional significance, and they have little practical application. Long may it remain that way.
Looking at the economic growth section I am a little concerned by the rather nannying tone of some of the suggestions. As Northern Ireland is already over-administered, we must be exceedingly wary of increasing work by creating more administration. Essentially, the business environment thrives best with the minimum of regulation. There are many examples of that around the world. The business community often says that the zeal with which the United Kingdom implements all the Directives that it receives from Brussels is somewhat in excess of that of our European partners. We need to be exceedingly conscious of this and be careful to limit our zeal. I particularly noticed that one of the provisions was to encourage businesses to become more competitive by learning from consumers. A business that does not constantly learn from its consumers has very little prospect of succeeding in the competitive world. We must be careful about making statements of this kind when they should be well understood already.
The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has frequently said that you cannot dictate to businesses where they should set up. You might attempt to use a light guiding hand, but that is the most that you can do. If the Government cannot bring jobs to the people, which I do not believe they can, they must take adequate measures to ensure that people can get to the jobs, and their transport policy should reflect this.
I note that among the provisions for the cross-border bodies there is provision for
"Consideration of proposals and of appropriate action on enhancing competitiveness of the two economies."
I do not think this is the case. Competitiveness takes place between the two economies and between these economies and any other economy with which one might be attempting to trade. That competition is entirely healthy so any differences between neighbouring regimes are welcome, because what is good in one place may be bad in another. We should bear this in mind.
All the emphasis in tourism tends to be on the marketing of Northern Ireland, or of all of Ireland, to the outside world. I am concerned that we have not placed enough emphasis on the internal marketing of our product, and I am concerned that this is not addressed in the document. It is one thing to attract visitors here, but it is another to give them a good time when they arrive. We need to ensure that their attention is drawn to every facility that might be attractive to them. The same applies to our own population. Tourist attractions in Northern Ireland are not well known to many of those working here. I hope the Minister will address that matter.

Mr Joe Byrne: I welcome the Programme for Government, and I pay tribute to the Ministers who assembled it. It is an important vision statement for the future of Northern Ireland.
I want to discuss the physical infrastructure, and I welcome, in particular, the five Executive programme funds. Adequate investment in the physical infrastructure is necessary for economic development in Northern Ireland. Those of us who live many miles outside Belfast have for many years accepted our social and economic disadvantages, as there has been inadequate investment in physical infrastructure across the region.
Those who want balanced regional economic development want the Government to take the lead in securing a fair and equitable distribution of resources throughout. The implementation of a balanced regional development strategy across the North, as a means of regenerating the economy, is a core SDLP policy. My party recognises that uneven development has exacerbated social exclusion in this area, adding to the political instability which has held this society back for too long. For the first time we have devolved power, and we now have the opportunity to reverse political instability and make, in the words of the Programme for Government, "a real difference to the lives of the people of this region."
This responsibility should not be taken lightly. I commend the Executive for creating an infrastructure/ capital renewal programme fund to address the underinvestment in our road, rail, sewerage and water networks and develop our energy market and telecommunication systems. The intention to produce a ten-year transportation strategy and to bring a Bill on transport before the Assembly should ensure that the North will have a truly integrated transportation system, which will achieve the correct balance between public and private, road and rail.
Resources are limited, so I am pleased to read that the Executive will be exploring alternative means of financing new projects in the form of public-private partnerships. The people of this region have suffered for too long on account of the poor condition of our roads and restricted access to public transport. We should not be shy about taking advantage of the benefits which private finance can bring to our transport system. With particular reference to the rural areas of Northern Ireland, the announcement that work will soon begin on a number of strategic route improvement schemes and on the plan to operate 15 rural community transport partnerships will help to rectify the transport deficit in rural areas, enhance safety and enable regional towns to maximise their economic potential. My constituency has three of the most deprived council wards in Northern Ireland. West Tyrone has not received its fair share of new inward investment projects. I therefore welcome the Executive’s aim of attracting 75% of all new first-time inward investment projects to such areas of disadvantage.
The Executive could further demonstrate their confidence in areas of high unemployment by initiating a wide- ranging policy of administrative decentralisation. A programme for Civil Service decentralisation could be drawn up and implemented over a five-year period, relocating entire sections or subsections of Government Departments to the major or key service centres identified by the Department for Regional Development’s strategic framework document ‘Shaping Our Future’ as local engines of economic growth. Such a policy has successfully operated in the Republic.
The measures that will be taken to create a more co-ordinated and efficient planning process are also very welcome. For several years there has been a backlog of planning applications, and planning regulations have been too restrictive, especially in rural areas. The Executive’s intention to issue a series of regional planning policy statements to make planning policy more flexible will form an important component of an overall regional development strategy and should strike a balance between our economic and infrastructure needs and our environmental concerns. I agree with the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s earlier reference to the importance of small- medium-sized enterprises.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member’s time is up.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: All that has been said in the debate by those Members whose parties are in the Executive Committee of the House — and indeed all that is in the 200 proposals contained in the 87 pages of this report — is nothing more than flannel. The report in total disguises the essential nakedness of this Administration. It has no serious proposals which it can bring before the House and have implemented in a serious fashion. In fact, it attempts to disguise this lack by embellishing the report with a great number of clichés. Indeed, this report is not a Programme for Government, but a book of clichés and well-meaning phrases. It is a book from a Government that will not actually achieve anything. It is a Government that says much but does very little.
This Administration — if I am generous to it — has allowed its ambition to get in the way of the political realities with which it is faced. We shall find that this Programme for Government, to which we shall return time and time again in the lifetime of this Executive, contains very few substantial proposals that have been implemented.
Mr Mallon, in his opening comments in this debate, paid tribute to the North/South Ministerial Council. Clearly those compliments do not extend as far as the First Minister, given the fact that, according to some of his friends, he has tried to scupper the operation of those council meetings.
Mr Leslie, who spoke a few moments ago, will find at page 55 in the very extensive chapter on developing North/South relationships that we are not going to get the benign and inoffensive North/South bodies that he seems to want. Mr Leslie’s desire to have largely inactive bodies will not be achieved. He will see that if he reads page 55 of the report, which says that the plan is to
"develop consultation, co-operation and action on an all-island and cross-border basis".

Dr Esmond Birnie: Will the Member give way?

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: The Member knows that I do not have time. The intention of this report is to act, not to be benign and inoffensive and not have all-Ireland action. It is to establish an all-Ireland, cross-border, governmental authority in Northern Ireland. Indeed, MrsCarson talked about sustainability and made great play of this, as did the Leader of SinnFéin/IRA in a dance of mutual respect. They where both talking about sustainability — we will sustain this if you sustain that. I checked the meaning of the word "sustain", and it means "to support, to bear the weight of over a long period, to give strength to and encourage". There is no doubt about it: this all-Ireland programme sustains Provisional IRA murder men in the Government of Northern Ireland. That is the reality of this report, and people ought not to lose sight of it. It sustains them. Is the Ulster Unionist Party going to continue to sustain those people in Government? We will find out soon enough.
Mrs Carson welcomed the report. However, during the course of her contribution she listed at least 20objections. If that was a welcome, I would hate to see her attack something she disagrees with.
We should object to this agenda because it contains nothing to deal with the specific issues that we raised in the various Committees. There is nothing in this report that will eradicate farm debt. How will the ordinary person, trying to develop his or her farm, know what rural proofing means, how it will operate and where the mechanics are for it? It contains nothing for a farm- restructuring scheme, and that disappoints me. The only way we can inject new life into this industry is to have a new farm retirement scheme that will allow new blood in and new measures to apply.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.
First, I want to turn to the introduction to the section ‘Securing a Competitive Economy’, which refers to the achievement of a cohesive, inclusive and just society that places communities at its centre. It states that the creation of a vibrant economy, producing employment and wealth for the future, is essential. This is a laudable and worthy objective, yet it appears that it is mere rhetoric. When we turn to the equality aspects in annexB, under section6 we are told that economic development may not initially benefit all equally. Why? Is this an admission of failure before we even start? [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. If Members wish to have a conversation, they should do so in the Lobby.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Are the Executive and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment telling us that they are not going to meet their statutory equality obligations? This is not good enough. Targeting social need (TSN) has been in place since 1990. It is about time we all started taking it seriously.
Earlier my Colleague JohnKelly pointed to the legitimate public concerns about private finance initiatives (PFI) and privatisation. Turning to the plans for the development of the rail system and the proposed Transport Bill, I would also urge caution. Privatisation, whether under PFIs or public-private partnerships (PPPs), of essential public services is a major policy change which will have a long-term and, I would argue, adverse impact on the public sector. It is a case of "Buy now, pay dearly later". It is not acceptable that the Programme for Government should present privatisation as a fait accompli without any debate, consultation or investigation into the efficacy or otherwise of such a drastic policy change. It is time we had a debate about PFI, privatisation, PPPs and so forth.
Section 5.3.2 on the role of inward investment states
"A challenge will be to change international perceptions to ensure that we can be a competitive location for investment and to ensure sufficient investment in areas of disadvantage and high unemployment. We will aim to attract 75% of all first time inward investment projects to such areas."
This has been the stated aim of the IDB for several years, and it has manifestly failed, through lack of political will, poor marketing strategies, a failure to work with people from disadvantaged areas and the failure to plan strategically for inward investment. The Programme for Government fails to acknowledge the important role of agencies such as the IDB in redressing years of religious discrimination. The equality agenda has to be applied to the role of the IDB and an end put to its practice of inflating the numbers of jobs promised and of actual jobs created. In this regard, it is a matter of major concern that the IDB is not subject to statutory equality duties under section 75.
We are also told in annex B, paragraph 6.5, that there is no power to direct investors to specific locations. There has been power here for generations to direct investors and business to specific locations, to the disadvantage and detriment of one community. It is about time we began to take our equality provisions seriously. Instead of paying lip-service to equality, we should be putting these provisions in place to lift areas up that have been disadvantaged through structural discrimination. Therefore I welcome the provisions under paragraph 5.3.1 to re-structure the economic development agencies, because it has been recognised for some time that there were major problems — particularly within the IDB. As an all-Ireland party, our preference is the creation of a single development agency on the island of Ireland.
However, whatever structures are eventually put in place — whether there are single agencies or multi-agencies — it is essential that an ethos of openness, transparency and accountability is put in place. It is time that TSN and our statutory equality duties were taken seriously and placed at the heart of the Department’s policy and that a close relationship was built up with the IDA and Enterprise Ireland. In that way we could enjoy economic co-operation on an all-Ireland scale instead of indulging in wasteful competitiveness. Go raibh maith agat.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I welcome this programme for two main reasons. First, there will be an advance in transparency of government which will become more apparent when we get access to the public service agreements for inspection and scrutiny. Secondly, I commend the promotion of cross-cutting interdepartmental co-operation in Government. Thus the key elements of the document run across the 11 Departments. I also welcome the Executive’s programme funds, though there are some questions about who will scrutinise their devising and application.
Chapter 4, which deals with investment, education and skills, is a good example of cross-cutting in Government in that it provides for co-operation between the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and also between the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. The Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee fully supports the aspirations outlined in chapter 4. Why? This is because human capital, in other words education and training, is now widely recognised as a key component of economic growth.
We must try to address what may be the central problem of the Northern Ireland economy: low pay. Relative to the rest of the United Kingdom and to much of north-west Europe, output and employment have grown impressively here over the last decade, but wages have declined. Low pay is better than no pay, but high pay is better still. Therefore we need to work on these aspirations in chapter 4 of the document.
There is also the question of skill shortages. They may not be evident at the moment in a static sense, but they would probably become very pressing in sectors such as tourism, financial services, and information technology, if the economy were to grow as rapidly as we fervently hope it will.
In the light of those considerations, I doubt that the targets and aspirations contained in chapter 4 go far enough. I share the reservations of John Simpson, expressed in an article in the ‘Business Telegraph’ on 7 November 2000:
"Are the further and higher education and vocational training targets high enough given the changing state of the market for skilled people?"
For example, are 200 higher education places enough, given the much higher number of places available in Scotland on a per capita basis, or the thousands of often unwilling student exiles this Province produces every year? The argument that 200 extra places are not enough can still be made, even after the Minister’s previous announcement of 4,200 places for 1999-2004. Given this background, the 5,000% increase in attainment levels in further education may also be too modest.
In conclusion, I welcome the outward-looking orientation of the document. Incidentally, the objective on chapter 4, page 40, relating to increased university lecturer exchanges between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland should appropriately be widened to include exchanges with the rest of the United Kingdom and the rest of the world.
Commendably, the programme often emphasises accountability. My Committee would like to see more specific mention of the roles of Assembly Committees in this regard, for example, in paragraph 7·1. The Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee has already provided the Finance Committee and the Minister with several dozen detailed comments on the text of this milestone document. It is a document that should help devolution to endure and work to the benefit of all the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr Alban Maginness: I welcome the Programme for Government. The production of this substantial document is evidence of the hard work that the Executive have undertaken in order to produce a programme for the good of the whole community in Northern Ireland. It demonstrates the value of having a devolved Administration and the Good Friday Agreement.
I was surprised to hear some Members, particular Ian Paisley Jnr, describe this document as insubstantial flannel. One could not get a more substantial document than this. It really is a great credit to the Administration that they have produced such a substantial document. Mr Paisley Jnr should look at the document again, especially the part relating to infrastructure.
He should look at the section on regional development, because he included all the Departments in his criticism. The regional development section talks about the production, by summer 2001, of a 10-year regional transportation strategy that will consider new funding sources. It provides for a strategy, from the spring of 2001, to tackle the historical underinvestment in Northern Ireland’s rail services, and, from 2001, an initiative to assist Translink to replace its buses and coaches after 18 and 12 years of service respectively. By the spring of 2002, the Belfast metropolitan transport plan will be completed.
The first tranche of legislative proposals for trust ports will be put forward in early 2001. Further work on a number of strategic route improvement schemes, a Railways Safety Bill and a Transport Bill are proposed. Fifteen rural community transport partnerships will be put into operation by 2001. These all fall under the remit of the Department for Regional Development — a DUP Department, so to speak. That shows how bankrupt the Member and his party have been in critically assessing this document. This is a substantial document that addresses the historical underfunding and underdevelopment of Northern Ireland’s infrastructure, and it places the whole problem of the underdevelopment of infrastructure within the context of creating a competitive economy in Northern Ireland. That is what we all have to do — create a vibrant economy, and by doing that we will create a situation in which the whole community benefits from the progress made.
We cannot develop a modern, competitive economy if we have Victorian infrastructure. Of course, recognising that problem is not sufficient — we have to apply our minds to remedying those deficiencies by developing alternative methods of funding in relation to our public programmes and to our infrastructure in particular.
It is not fair or right for Dara O’Hagan to say that we should have a debate on public-private partnerships and private finance initatives. We have to look at all the options, because we do not have sufficient funds under the Barnett Formula to develop our infrastructure. If we do not develop our infrastructure, we do not develop our economy. Therefore, it is unfair for the Member to come to the House and say that she does not want PPPs or PFIs. We have to look at all the options. We may reject some of them, but, nonetheless, we have to look at them all.
It is essential to develop a modern water system — for our environment, for public health, and for industry. It is also essential for industry and for people generally that we develop a modern transportation system in Northern Ireland. It is also important that we develop our ports to maximum business efficiency, and that is what the document sets out to do.

Mr Jim Wells: I have listened with interest to the various contributions, and I still cannot help but think that this is a matter of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. The Programme for Government does not address who should be in the Government in the first place. The Government are devising a programme with people in power who have tortured this community. We still have two Departments with terrorists in Government. That is still totally unacceptable.

Mr Speaker: Order. I must advise the Member that he and his Colleagues need to be careful about what they say about other Members. I will be carefully scrutinising Hansard to see what precisely is said and whether there are specific accusations about specific Members, for that would not be in order.

Mr Jim Wells: Mr Speaker, it is a matter of record that the Minister of Education is a convicted terrorist. I am not saying anything that has not been on the front page of every newspaper in the country.

Mr Speaker: The Member would be well advised to read what I have said in Hansard and to be more careful about what he says in the rest of his speech, and then to read tomorrow in Hansard what he has said.

Mr Jim Wells: I will certainly do that, Mr Speaker

Mr Speaker: You would be well advised to.

Mr Jim Wells: I suspect that I will not for one moment be withdrawing that last comment.
The programme does not address that fundamental problem. The ordinary, decent people of the Province will never accept, in the Government of their country, an Executive that includes people who are out and out supporters of — and in a previous life were — active terrorists. That is simply unacceptable. That is the rock on which the whole process will ultimately fail.
By all means, it is good to have an academic debate on the Programme for Government, but at the next election the people will clearly destroy this Government, and quite rightly so. As a party, we are dedicated to the overthrow of any system that allows terrorists into the Government of the Province.
However, there are one or two issues that should be highlighted. An issue that I am very concerned about and which, unfortunately, obviously there is going to be no movement on, is the early retirement scheme for farmers. There are 28,000 full-time farmers in the Province. Many of them are trapped in the industry; they cannot get out because they are over 50 years old, but below retirement age. There is no scheme which would enable them to enjoy some form of retirement, to get out of the industry and receive a decent income. Until we address that fundamental problem in the overall structure of the agriculture industry, we will not solve the problems of the Province’s farming sector. This is one of the rare occasions on which the Minister cannot say that she is bound by EU regulations. Not only do EU regulations permit such an idea, but it has been successfully implemented in countries such as France. That is a crucial point that should have been, but was not, addressed in the programme.
I am particularly interested in the environment and in regional development. There is some reference to private finance initiatives and public-private partnerships in the Programme for Government. However, more emphasis should have been placed on finding alternative funding for the enormous problems faced by the Department for Regional Development. The Water Service requires £3 billion to be spent on water over the next 30 years. The Roads Service requires £2 billion to be spent over 10 years. Regardless of what Dr O’Hagan or anyone else in Sinn Féin says, the Assembly will never have sufficient money to meet the needs which exist under the present budgetary constraints. It will not happen.
I share the feelings of those who are concerned about privatisation. I am sure that most Members would oppose any moves to privatise the Water Service, for instance. However, between the present budgetary arrangements and privatisation, we have to explore every possible angle and create a funding package with which to overcome the huge lack of investment in infrastructure in the Province.
May I be parochial and say that there are many towns in the Province that are still being strangled by congestion. It would be remiss of me not to mention Ballynahinch, which desperately needs a by-pass. There are one or two towns in every constituency where a relatively small amount of investment would relieve congestion.
I welcome the emphasis on public transport. We have turned the tide on that, and the £102 million package for railway investment is to be welcomed. However, that only takes us up to the end of year three, and many people will be asking what will happen after that with regard to funding.
Therefore, some aspects of the Programme are welcome but, in others, opportunities have been missed. However, that does not solve the ultimate problem facing the Province.

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Programme for Government represents a consensus between parties who do not often agree but quite often disagree on political aspirations and social and economic analysis. It is not a radical document, but a radical departure was not an option, given the limited devolution and severely prescribed control of finance that exists. However, the Programme for Government contains some innovative and creative ideas, which are very welcome. It is churlish not to recognise that.
In some respects, it is an indication of the benefits and effects of bringing local expertise and accountability to bear. However, we cannot ignore the impact of the subsequent actions of the First Minister. Regardless of how reality is presented or dolled-up, the programme was presented on Monday 23 October — and it was generally welcomed by the people of the Six Counties — but by 28 October, five days later, there was a programme for the destruction of government. Both programmes were presented by the same person. That has in many ways affected this lacklustre debate. There is an air of unreality.
Public confidence in the ability of the Executive and the Assembly to rise above party interest has been severely dented.
At the start of today’s debate, DavidTrimble said that the Draft Programme for Government was arguably the most important business that the Assembly had transacted since it came into existence. He said that that might strike some as a bold assertion — I can think of a more accurate description. He went on to say that the debate represented the beginning of the maturity of the new politics of the agreement. Which agreement is he talking about? He always seems to be referring to a different document from the rest of us. That is at the heart of the difficulties that we have experienced.
In his statement, DavidTrimble set out his objectives:
"to deliver a new beginning for Government … Government which is responsive to the community that it serves and which is in tune with the people by whom it has been elected".
Those are grand sentiments. He said that it would be a Government that would
"seek to provide new and better public services and new and better opportunities for the community as a whole—Protestant and Catholic and those of other religions and none, Unionist, Nationalist, Republican and those of no particular political conviction, male and female, the young as well as the elderly, those of British or Irish descent and those who have only more recently come to live among us".
It would be encouraging if that were supported with integrity and consistency. We listen to DavidTrimble and weep, as we reflect on the reality.
We face the most serious crisis yet in the peace process. It has been engineered by DavidTrimble and the unelected, unrepresentative Ulster Unionist Council. Genuine supporters of the Good Friday Agreement have been disappointed by the British Government’s failure to establish clear blue water between their position and the position adopted by the Ulster Unionist Council and the First Minister. It is not good enough for Peter Mandelson to say that he will not endorse what DavidTrimble says—we did not ask him to endorse it, and, to my knowledge, no one else did. It is not good enough for Peter Mandelson to say that he does not have the power to force DavidTrimble to sign a piece of paper—nobody asked him to adopt those powers and nobody argued that he had those powers. However, the British Government have a responsibility under the terms of the international treaty that they signed, and under the terms of the agreement, to protect the integrity of the agreement. So far, they have failed to do so.
The agreement stipulates that if the North/South Ministerial Council does not function as prescribed, the Assembly will fall, because of their interdependence. That is the specifically stated, intended result of the UUP’s strategy. DavidTrimble set out his aims in his letter of 26 October — create a crisis, force a suspension and blame Republicans. That is in writing. DavidTrimble set out a six-point plan to achieve that: disrupting the functioning of the North/South —

Mr Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Mr George Savage: I broadly welcome the Programme for Government. The fact that we have a Programme for Government at all is testament to the solid and sustained progress that has been made. That progress has not been widely enough realised in the community, and we will have to address that issue. There is much for which to commend the Programme for Government and much to commend in the specific measures relating to the work of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. I have a particular interest in those matters and hold a remit from my party on them.
No one can fault the commitment to improve the quality of NorthernIreland’s agricultural produce. Northern Ireland already has a good and well-deserved reputation, and any steps to reinforce and maintain those high standards must be welcomed. That reputation for quality underpins the commercial success of the agri- food industry at home and in the export markets.
I welcome the proposals and the targets for the number of clean cattle given E, U and Rgrades. My concerns about the Programme for Government’s measures for agriculture and rural development are not about what it says, but about what it does not say. I am concerned about what is not contained in the programme — the sins of omission, not the sins of commission. To say that agriculture is in crisis is an understatement — every schoolchild knows that. One blow has followed another and there are real and pressing issues to be tackled.
The agriculture department in any country is required to look to producers and consumers. The emphasis in the Programme for Government, while it rightly addresses consumer concerns here and abroad, does not favour producers and its comments in section 5.3.4 relating to producers are rather sparse. I agree that producers cannot thrive if consumers are not happy. I agree that it is in everybody’s interests to secure product quality, and I agree that we have a reputation to maintain in that regard, as we have been at the cutting edge in food production and have shown the rest of Europe the way ahead. A case in point would be our tracking system for beef products in the context of the BSE crisis now beginning to ravage our partners in France.
However, the crisis in agriculture does not rest with consumers, either primary consumers in the agri-food industry or secondary consumers, the customers in the shops or supermarkets: it lies with the farmers, as producers. The issues threatening to destroy agriculture are farm incomes and farmgate prices. Destroy the farmers and the whole edifice of the agri-food industry that rests on them will also be destroyed. Yet, I do not see, in the Programme for Government, any direct measures to alleviate the profoundly serious situation in which farmers find themselves.
At best, product quality measures will have only an indirect and long-term impact on the viability of farming as a livelihood. "Rural development" is no afterthought in the title of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development — it is not just something tagged on to the end. Rural development — in this age of declining farm incomes, and when, because of the common agricultural policy, land is being taken out of production — is a critical part of the rural economy. It could be the means by which farmers’ heads are kept above the economic welfare waterline. Indeed at section 5.1.3, the Programme for Government specifically states that the Executive will seek to promote other sources of income generation in the rural economy. But that must be more than words, it must be action, and action now. "Rural development" was not an afterthought. Farmers are diversifying into other businesses, such as agri-tourism, but they need time, encouragement, and most of all they need backing.

Mr John Dallat: I support the Programme for Government. This is a very important day for me. It is the first time in my lifetime that there has been an opportunity to debate such a programme. That is, in itself, little short of a miracle given our political instability in the past — when we were governed by absentee landlords, some of whom did their best, some of whom did not care, and all of whom were quite unable to give the attention to detail that is now possible. I make no apology for talking up this Programme for Government. I certainly will not talk it down as others have.
The Good Friday Agreement promised equality above everything else. However, equality is not a solution in itself, especially if inequality is shared by everyone. Many groups desperately hope that the Assembly will recognise their plight, and I make no apology for singling out the 250,000 people who have serious literacy and numeracy problems. There can be no greater injustice than having people who struggle to read and write or cope with simple arithmetic. That must be addressed, and there has to be a concentrated effort to find the additional resources needed to tackle one of the most fundamental rights of any citizen — the right to communicate, to understand and be understood.
There are many pressures on the education sector, but a new start has been made. Lifelong learning is now a reality but it is also inadequately funded. Nevertheless, we will not rule out any sources of funding. Recently, the Minister of Education was involved in a private finance initiative scheme with St Genevieve’s school in Belfast, which I support. The additional places at local universities are most welcome, but thousands of our young people will still have to travel to England, Scotland or Wales for their education when it should be their fundamental right to be educated at home. The amount of extra cash for further education is small — will it be enough to train young people in the skills needed to meet the demands of modern industry? The Minister has highlighted that sector, and his efforts are worthy of our support.
Reference has been made to the crisis in the agriculture industry. I want to welcome the 24,000 new training places created for farmers — 12,000 for business training and 12,000 for environmental training. The commitment to developing a rural planning policy statement by 2002 is a major step forward, which demonstrates that a cross-cutting approach will be needed to tackle the real structural problems in the rural community. For the first time in 30 years, these and many other agricultural issues are back on the agenda. As a member of the Agriculture Committee, I will ensure that the Chairperson understands the importance of rural proofing to the community that I represent.
Rural development programmes have played their part in the regeneration of small towns and villages, and that will continue through the Programme for Government. It is no mean feat that, during direct rule and some of the worst violence, ordinary people put their ideas together, defied hopelessness and transformed many small towns and villages. The fight to save our towns and villages is not over. The future of our rural post offices is a challenge that must be faced shortly, while we must also address many other aspects of the infrastructure. Rural development is an important part of the Programme for Government, and everything must be done to ensure that our rural culture, heritage and economic well-being are preserved for this and future generations.
The public attaches great importance to accountability. They are only too well aware that, during the dark days of direct rule, Government accountability was minimal. There is now two-way, direct communication with the Comptroller and Auditor General, who has demonstrated a willingness to work with the Assembly for the greater good of the electorate. The Public Accounts Committee has already done excellent work in scrutinising expenditure, and I fully support the moves to include many semi- state bodies and other providers of public services, which currently fall outside the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Value for money, accountability and the elimination of waste are crucial to the success of the Programme for Government. Perhaps the most important factor, which will ensure the successful delivery of the programme, is the ability of all Members to work together. To date, there has been remarkable co-operation across party lines, and the public welcomes that because it knows we are making history together, despite our reservations, concerns and mistrust.

Mr Mervyn Carrick: I take part in this debate as someone who is opposed to the Belfast Agreement. In the limited time available to me, I will take a critical look at the Programme for Government. Will the programme, or rather can it, deliver policies of social betterment and equal opportunity for all sections of the community in the fields of the economy, education, and social welfare? I have some concerns about that.
Where does the Programme for Government tackle the problems of those young people trapped in the unemployment blackspots, who can find neither training nor employment opportunities? Since the demise of the ACE scheme, programmes that provided real social support through a range of training opportunities geared to real life have withered. This training included trade skills, household skills and care programmes.
On 24 October we were told by the Deputy First Minister that our young people are an "important focus of attention" — and so they are — yet all he could promise was an extra 500 training places in areas of skill shortages. What are these areas of skill shortages? Where are these training places going to be provided? I also noted that Mr Mallon promised an extra 200 undergraduate places on top of the 4,200 further and higher education places planned by 2004. Where are these 4,400 places to be located? When will they be available to students? What student support arrangements will be created so that the places can be made available to those who need them most?
The Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment has promised that his student finance review will address the needs of part-time and full-time students in further and higher education. I am surprised to see in the draft budget for 2001-02 that despite the promised additional places, no provision has been made for extra funding for students. Is this all to be jam for tomorrow?
I call, yet again, for assurances that the new student finance arrangements will be working for the next academic year. It is a disgrace that every year 35% of all Northern Ireland school leavers who go on to university have to leave Northern Ireland. It is a disgrace that most of those who leave do so unwillingly, because there are simply not enough openings for them in Northern Ireland. It is a further disgrace that most of those who leave are of one religious persuasion — Protestant. How can we allow this to happen when we know that most of those who leave to study will not come back? What a tragic loss at a time when this battered region needs its young people to build a society based on the principles of social justice and opportunity for all.
I was shocked to learn that graduates working in Northern Ireland consistently earn less than others throughout the United Kingdom — only 80% of the UK average. I am saddened to note that earnings in Northern Ireland are only 86% of the UK average. Is this Programme for Government going to be enough, not only to provide the further and higher education places and skills training which existing employers need, but also to encourage industry to invest? Will the programme do enough to tackle the problems of adult literacy and numeracy which have been so well documented?
I am disappointed that the monitoring of evaluation accountability arrangements gets scant mention in the draft programme. The Northern Ireland Assembly, in its plenary activities, has an important scrutiny and consultative role regarding legislation and policy development, and the Assembly’s Committees have explicit legal powers with respect to policy development consultation scrutiny. Where are these mentioned?
Finally, what of the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General as an officer of the Assembly with the specific duty to supply propriety, safeguard against fraud and ensure effectiveness and efficiency? This is simply not mentioned.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to comment on the Programme for Government, and I want to detail priorities such as securing a competitive economy within the wider global economy. I recognise the financial constraints put on this Assembly by the British Exchequer as regards proper funding, and I am extremely disappointed that the huge British war machine budget, accounting for hundreds of millions of pounds, has not been redistributed but instead has gone back to the British Exchequer. If we are to focus on environmental issues, we must do so on an all-Ireland basis. We are a small nation, and in respect of environmental issues, no one part of it should be disregarded.
We must also draw a clear line under many of the economic and business developments — the failures of the past, North and South, to bring a cross-section of business potential to the whole of Ireland. We must also bring benefits to those areas and communities throughout the island that are most economically marginalised and disadvantaged. You may ask what this has to do with the Programme for Government. We are supposed to benefit from all-Ireland bodies set up under the Good Friday Agreement, but these are the same bodies that the First Minister is trying to destroy by putting a block on the all-Ireland structures.
There is a need for business on both sides of the border to live up to its wider responsibilities so that it can benefit from the economic growth that has occurred in the rest of Ireland. A number of topics fall into this category — union recognition, profit sharing, adequate wages, better working conditions, as well as ensuring that the business activities are not harmful to the environment. There must be greater co-operation in areas such as roads and rail development, electricity, gas, waste management and recycling, not to mention telephone communications, infrastructures, the harnessing of taxes and a single currency for the whole of the island.
We must capitalise on all-Ireland bodies by forging greater links in economic planning and policy making, driven by bottom-up participation. When building the economy here in the Six Counties, we must look to the future, and that future must recognise cross-border trade. At present, 26% of exports from the Six Counties go South, while only 4% of exports from the Twenty- Six Counties come North. The two Administrations agree that it would be in their mutual interests to exchange information on co-ordination and work on trade and business development and other related matters, with a view to bringing benefit to everyone on the island. This will happen only if everyone is ready to play their part. The Programme for Government must give the lead. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: Mention was made of the rural economy. All too often, I see that rural economy recognised as being agriculture, with maybe a bit of tourism thrown in, and a few people living out there who commute to the towns and cities. However, we may have missed out on a big slice of rural life. There is a large rural economy consisting of perhaps small businesses; some of them may be only metal bashing, for example, but some of that metal bashing turned into major operations such as Powerscreen International Ltd in the Dungannon area. There are small woodworking operations, firms that deal in concrete products and other commodities. For example, Finlays Block Making Equipment in Ballygawley and the Quinn Group do business all over west Fermanagh and west Cavan. There are also equally good opportunities for small-scale food processing.
I do not want to delay unduly, but I want to raise those issues. All too often we look at the rural economy as being purely agriculture-focused, and it does employ a considerable number of people. I get the distinct impression that LEDU and other agencies are perhaps not as favourably disposed towards these small rural companies as they would be if they were in an urban setting.
I welcome the general aspects of investment in public transport, but there is a need for a major overhaul of Translink and its accountability. I am somewhat bemused, if not befuddled, by the prospect of coaches being subsidised, which is a tour-operating rather than a public- transport issue. I would like more information on that.
Briefly, I turn again to the question of overall government. Improvement and greater efficiency in services is mentioned. I emphasise an interest in e-government in the modernisation programme. There is an opportunity, as yet unrecognised by many and an urgent need for early pilot projects across every Department. This was touched on indirectly at Question Time. We should not be passive.
I could spend some time outlining the opportunities in health. It should not take three or four weeks for communication between a GP and a hospital to reach its destination, but in some cases that happens. It is equally difficult to find a patient’s hospital discharge letter.
I would welcome the opportunity for a pilot jobfinder project in the Training and Employment Agency. All too often, certainly in the Belfast area, people looking for jobs are herded towards Gloucester House. If they could work on an interactive programme and personal profile themselves, or create a curriculum vitae, the work involved in job placements could be reduced by between 50% and 60%. This is not to criticise the people who currently deal manually with these matters, but I wonder how we can remove some of the more laborious and boring administrative aspects. Every project could be worked at by every Department. I can only imagine the benefits to farmers if some farms were put on an e-government process.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Dr McDonnell, your time is up.

Mr Gardiner Kane: I must begin by saying that the elevation of rural issues is a significant feature in the Programme for Government proposals. There is an acceptance of the number of the people who work, are educated and live in the countryside. The implications for the rural communities and the aspirations for how this programme should affect rural life are, in theory, noble. The reality may prove less than a match for expectations. The constraints that have been placed on the budgetary scope of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development have created a situation in which we may have missed the point. Measures designed to restructure rural life to provide opportunities to improve the skills and qualifications of the work force are desperately needed and are, therefore, welcome.
However, in one calendar year the number of farm businesses in existence that offer traditional forms of rural employment has shrunk by 4%. To that extent we have missed the point. By training our young people we are in danger of preparing them to move away from rural communities. Our agriculture industry is heading towards retirement, and there is no incentive for young people to go into it.
The retirement scheme would have actively engaged young people in meeting the challenges of modern farming. Instead, they will drift away from our rural communities in search of employment. To that extent, expenditure targets have failed to address the problem. To put these comments into context, in the Moyle area, where I am a councillor, 25% of the population depends on agriculture for direct and indirect employment. That illustrates the essential need for radical restructuring of individual farm businesses in order to protect employment.
Failure to provide assistance for capital investment on farms would have a twofold effect. First, the farming industry and the rural economy have been so damaged by crisis that it is well-nigh impossible for farm resources to meet the requirements of investment in deadstock, that is, buildings, boundary fences and fields, et cetera. Secondly, the impact of continued rural ruin on tourism will be such that we will have nothing concrete to offer.
There are some positive and constructive proposals in this programme to sustain the life of Northern Ireland’s rural communities. However, because of the diversity of their requirements, the implications of the Programme for Government have not been as comprehensive or as far-reaching in some areas as they should be. Therefore, I contend that in some key areas the programme has been remiss and continues to miss the point.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I would like to address chapter 5, ‘Securing a Competitive Economy,’ from an agriculture and rural development point of view. The draft Programme for Government is quite a good document; it is extensive, although somewhat vague. The introduction to chapter 5 says
"If we are to achieve a cohesive, inclusive and just society which places people and communities at its centre, it is essential that we create a vibrant economy, to produce employment and wealth for the future."
Two of the action points at the bottom of page 42 are
"Working together to regenerate the rural economy; and ensuring the protection and enhancement of the environment."
At point 5.1.2 it says that creating the right conditions for economic growth depends on
"the promotion of enterprise, innovation and creativity … if local industry is to compete and prosper in the global economy."
Agriculture is one of the main industries in rural areas. I am disappointed that there is no real commitment to farming. There is nothing in the document in relation to an environmental scheme which has broad support from farm organisations and the farming community and which the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee asked for. The Programme for Government makes no mention of a retirement scheme or restructuring, nor is there any installation aid to help young farmers get into the industry.
There is nothing in the document to show that money will be directed to farming to raise prices, ease the debt situation and put money directly into farmers’ pockets. In defence of this, the Minister and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development say that the European Union will not allow state aid to be handed down to farmers directly.
In the South this week they are launching a new seven- year plan in which they have given IR£3·9 billion to the farming economy. If they are spending that sort of money in the South and giving that commitment to their agricultural economy for the future, while we have just tinkered around the edges with a few things like training and the upkeep of what is already there, then someone has got it wrong. That is why I am particularly disappointed.
What we asked for is what the farmers are asking for, and the matter will have to be looked at in the future.
On the wider economy, joined-up Government must look at the trade and industry side to allow small business development to help to replace some of the shortfall that will occur in the agriculture industry over the next few years. The IDB and LEDU — or perhaps an amalgamation of the two — should be of some help to the small industries. At present, the IDB does not help small businesses, because it can assist only in much larger job creation ventures.
The North/South structures of the Good Friday Agreement would have been very helpful. I know that there are those who are totally against them for their own political reasons, but it makes sense to work on policies which relate to an all-island structure. We have the same type of geography and farming practices here as they have in the South, yet the British Government policies work directly against us in almost every area.
As far as targeting social need is concerned, nowhere needs money to be directed towards it more than the rural areas generally and the farming industry in particular. I am somewhat disappointed in the part of the programme that relates to the rural economy. There is no real commitment to enhance that economy over the next few years. That has to be changed. Whoever is in charge of the relevant Departments in the future must think about moving forward and putting money into the base industry. The base industry must be strengthened so that we have something there for the future. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Alan McFarland: We have listened today to a succession of Sinn Féin Members complaining about David Trimble. The solution to their problem is very simple. Sort out the weapons issue, and politics can return to normal. The people of Northern Ireland did not vote for an armed peace. Also, in listening to the DUP, one could be forgiven for assuming that its Ministers had absolutely no input into the Programme for Government.
I welcome the Programme for Government and, in particular, the Executive’s action on a regional development strategy. For the first time we will have a cross- departmental strategic plan for the Province. The plan will spawn a rural development strategy to ensure sustainable development in the countryside, so that farms may diversify and remain viable and small villages may expand with incoming jobs, encouraging young people to remain in the rural areas.
The strategy also proposes the development of our infrastructure. If we are to take full advantage of the expected economic benefits of peace, we will need airports and seaports and a rail and road infrastructure which can cope with that. It is particularly welcome that the programme accepts that the rail network needs to be stabilised and developed. Next year’s transport strategy will map out a way forward to start rolling back years of underfunding.
The regional development strategy also paves the way for an urban regeneration strategy to introduce an agreed plan on how our urban areas, particularly Greater Belfast, are to be developed. I particularly welcome the review of planning statement policies. I hope that the review will stop the destruction of old buildings throughout the Province resulting from the construction of flats for financial gain.
At a time when the system of setting a 60% limit on building on brownfield sites in Britain is being revised upwards, I hope that the review will reverse the present proposal to set brownfield development at 40% in Belfast. Such a policy would provide open season for the large developers to destroy the hills around Belfast and most of north Down’s green belt.
Overall, the cross-departmental strategy should make Northern Ireland a better place to live in. The real test will come next year when detailed rural, urban and transport strategies will come into being and their resulting costs will become known.

Mr Seamus Close: When the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister introduced this draft programme in a statement to the House on 24 October, they promised that a longer debate would be held in mid-November to receive the Assembly’s broad views on the programme
"once the Committees have had an initial opportunity to consider the document."
I have listened today to what I can only refer to as a disorganised farce passing for a debate. It is clear that what we have heard is a collection of individual views. Why? The Committees have not had sufficient time to form a view and present it to the House. Therefore, today’s exercise cannot be the last word, the second last word, or the third last word on this programme. The views expressed must be co-ordinated by the respective departmental Committees to preserve the integrity of the House. They must be prioritised before we can contemplate agreeing a final programme.
As I said in October, much of the programme is aspirational, resulting in targets that will be difficult to achieve, for we cannot see them. Perhaps they do not even exist. We are promised public-service agreements (PSAs), but we do not yet know what they are. How can we properly scrutinise and consider what we cannot see? The public-service agreements are extremely important: they will set out the aims, objectives and targets for each of the Departments. How can we offer constructive comment on a programme, particularly when it refers to the longer term and the anticipation of those public-service agreements? This seriously calls into question our whole modus operandi.
Throughout the document we are promised that various strategies will be put in place. On page45 there is a reference to a strategy to ensure that all of Northern Ireland has a world-class telecommunications infrastructure. That is a wonderful idea, but how is it going to happen? When is it going to happen? How much is it going to cost?
We are told that by next summer a ten-year regional transportation strategy will be produced. I say "Hallelujah" to that, but will it be a rail- or road-orientated strategy? I do not know, because it is not in the draft programme. Until we see these programmes and strategies fleshed out, how can we tell if they meet the expectations of the people and address their priorities? Equally important is whether they are affordable within a reasonable time span.
The public have major concerns about health, education, and administration, yet it is not programmes for action or strategies that we see. It is reviews, and reviews mean more uncertainty. With a devolved Government run by locally elected politicians, the people want to be assured that that their hospital will be secure and that Northern Ireland will have more intensive care beds. They want to see the 11-plus and student fees abolished and an efficient and effective Administration with fewer quangos, less bureaucracy and savings used to finance the type of changes to which I referred earlier.
The draft programme needs strengthening in other areas. For example, there has been much talk about a new multi-sports arena for Northern Ireland. That is not mentioned in the document. There have been many calls at district council level to allow third-party planning appeals. Are these to be ignored? I am unclear as to whether ‘Strategy 2010’, referred to on pages 12 and 43 to name but two, is going to be speedily implemented. Where are the targets for gross domestic product (GDP), new business start-up, exports, et cetera? What about a single development agency or an economic forum?
While I appreciate that the Budget for 2001-02 deals with the costing for that year, projected costs for future years would have helped. That could help prioritisation, and it would certainly help transparency. A review of public administration will be introduced to reduce the cost of administration. No doubt this will involve looking closely at local authorities, their numbers and their powers, et cetera. However, why is the completion of the review on the calculations of the resources element of the general exchequer grant one of the draft Programme for Government’s action plans for 2001? That will involve more legislation and expense.

Mr Speaker: Your time is up.

Mr P J Bradley: I welcome the Programme for Government, and I am pleased that emphasis has been put on agriculture and rural development. Twenty-five years have passed during which we had no printed proposals to debate or anything to contribute. Therefore my welcome is understandable.
In particular, I welcome the announcement that within the next fivemonths the Assembly will implement final arrangements for formal co-operation between the two Governments on animal health issues on the island of Ireland. I further welcome the announcement of a specific target date of March2002 for implementation of joint strategies for the improvement of animal health on both sides of the border. If this common-sense approach is properly implemented, we may see the eradication of costly diseases such as BSE, bovine TB and brucellosis within the next decade. The joint exercise makes sound economic sense, as duplication and expenditure will be greatly reduced when the respective research centres unite to address the common goal of good animal health. The subsequent benefits that the marketing of top-quality food will bring to producers and consumers alike is a plus factor to which we can all look forward
I welcome the proposal for free travel for senior citizens. This could be implemented very quickly if the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Minister for Social Development and the Minister for Regional Development accept that it is within their respective powers to assist financially a free travel programme. Some Members have claimed the free travel proposals to be the policy of their respective parties. In the SDLP we have sought this facility for decades, but just like the other parties, our message was falling on the deaf ears of direct rule Ministers.
I welcome the fact that efforts are being made to secure proposals for the introduction of North/South and north-west gas pipelines. I hope that if they are not introduced simultaneously, the North/South aspect will get priority.
I endorse the comments of those who addressed the positive attention paid to matters such as protecting our villages and hamlets, training for members of the rural community, the importance of infrastructure and transport, the beef quality initiative, et cetera. I ask all Members to adopt as policy the words of the Executive in section 5.4.1 of the Programme for Government:
"We will work together to regenerate the rural economy."
Finally, as party spokesman for agriculture, I welcome the announcement in the rural regeneration section of the programme that the Executive have agreed to establish a ministerial group to proof all Government policies for rural impact. This paragraph alone will offer great assurance to the rural community and those of us concerned with the future of agriculture and rural development.

Rev William McCrea: Mr J Wilson said earlier that this Programme for Government was a great gain brought about through the Belfast Agreement. The old saying is that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The community is going to have to digest some very serious pudding. I have no doubt that much of the document is designed for presentational purposes and that behind much of the rhetoric there is little of consequence. However, it will be a good benchmark by which we can judge the operational effectiveness of individual Departments. AlbanMaginness said that one of the most substantial parts of the document was that relating to the Department for Regional Development. Naturally I concur that my Colleagues take their departmental responsibilities seriously and will prove to be excellent Ministers.
Paragraph1.8 could be regarded as outlining the Programme for Government’s mission statement on environmental issues. It says that a good quality built and natural environment is the key to our economy, helping to attract investors and visitors as well as being integral to the future of agriculture. It adds that sustainability must be the key theme running through the Executive’s work.
Those are very fine words, but the words might be the weightiest part of it, because the Environment Committee does not consider that sustainability is a key theme of the Programme for Government. Does the Minister consider that it has been given a sufficiently high profile, and if he believes it has, can he explain how and where it appears in the Programme for Government? The Committee understands that it is unlikely that the environment will benefit to any significant extent from the Executive’s funds.
Does this reflect the real priority attached to the protection of our environment? The Environment Committee is concerned that there is virtually no mention in the Programme for Government of the need to protect the built heritage. Can the Minister tell us why? This absence is borne out by the failure of the bid for additional funding for the historic building grant that will lead to a loss of funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund. Is this how we will protect our heritage? Those are fine words, but what of substance?
Section 5.2.3 sets out a number of actions to be taken to create a more efficient planning process. The Committee would like to know if the Department has secured the necessary resources to carry forward this work. If not, how realistic is the aim of the programme to clear the backlog in planning applications by December 2002?
Section 3.1.5 refers to "The Well-being of our Children". The Environment Committee welcomes the active increase in the number of road safety education officers. The safety of our children is of paramount importance to the Committee. At its first public inquiry, the Committee will be looking into the legislation which allows up to 101 children under 14 years old on a 53-seater bus. How can the Programme for Government claim that the emphasis on improving road safety through education will continue, when the Department itself considers that overcrowding of school buses is safe?
Section 3.3 states
"we will not only fulfil our EU obligations, but also seek to ensure that development takes place in a sustainable way."
Can the Minister assure me that the Department of the Environment is now in a position to implement EU Directives and will no longer be in danger of infraction proceedings? Can the Minister guarantee that we will fulfil all our EU obligations as stated in the Programme for Government? If not, this claim should not be made.
Section 7.4 of the Programme for Government refers to
"greater accountability for all services through a more efficient and effective structure of administration at local level."
Given that we are to have local government elections next year, the Environment Committee has been endeavouring to obtain information about accountability from the Minister and his Department. Is it not time that the Department came clean on this issue?

Mr Danny Kennedy: I am grateful for the opportunity to address the Assembly on this subject. The Programme for Government is ambitious, and it remains to be seen whether all that is promised will actually be achieved. Only time will tell. As Chairman of the Education Committee, I would like to bring a number of comments to the attention of the Assembly. This document puts strong emphasis on new TSN at an educational level. The Education Committee is unable to confirm that the action it has planned reflects the issues in the Programme for Government or vice versa. We await the outcome of that.
Equality issues are also prominent in the document, and the Department of Education is still awaiting a response from the Equality Commission on whether its equality scheme will be acceptable. Many issues remain unresolved, and the Education Committee will scrutinise that work.
Through its memorandum on the Budget, the Education Committee has sought to obtain an allocation of the Executive’s Programme Funds for education. In the coming years it will press for as many resources as possible for education. Education is a priority. We also note the inclusion of public-service agreements in the Programme for Government and intend to scrutinise these targets to assess their educational value to the Department.
The Department of Education recently issued a consultation paper on the viability criteria for Irish- medium and integrated schools, and the Education Committee wants the same viability criteria to be applied to all schools, while ensuring that there is educational choice for every child and parent.
Given the rural nature of Northern Ireland, the Education Committee acknowledges the important role schools play, particularly in rural regeneration. We note the actions which relate specifically to education and will monitor closely the implementation of these targets and stated policies.
The Education Committee has asked the Department of Education to undertake research into early formal education, given that children in other European countries start their education at a later age. We will make comparisons and monitor the future progress of the transfer system.
The Department of Education has stated that it intends to review the current educational arrangements of what are called "quangos" — quasi-autonomous, non-governmental organisations. My Committee welcomes this and would like to see proposals for taking this forward at an early stage.
A great deal is promised in this Programme for Government, but much of the detail is missing at this stage. Only as we scrutinise the work of the Department of Education over the coming months will our members be convinced that everything is possible and that appropriate action is being taken on all these points.

Mr Oliver Gibson: I have heard many comments about this document today. Some people have called it transparent, and I would certainly call it transparent — to the point of opaqueness. It is a great wish list. It is a weaker document than many believe, for it is transparently unrealistic.
Let us turn to the last three paragraphs on page 10 that pay particular attention to the needs of victims. The sum of £4 million goes to prisoners who have perpetrated the deeds against the victims, while the victims receive £40,000. We are committed to helping those affected by economic difficulties and to give them equal opportunities. I have sat in this Chamber and heard about a partnership which distributes European and British money to the Catholic population that describes itself as a Catholic body with a few token Prods. Is this tackling inequality? Certainly not. Is this a just society?
Last Saturday evening a truck came in to blow up another Armistice Day commemoration. There have been 49 contract murders since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement.
Let us look at the top of page 11. Two sentences there show that some people are more equal than others. When we examine this document in detail, we see it as a willy-nilly wish list, a grouping of clichés that may be acceptable to some people in this Building who have no contact with reality.
I wish to pursue this and to examine the transparency needed to achieve equality in the distribution of funds to schools, because 80% of funding goes to the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools sector. Is that equality? Those of us who are used to the real world must view this document with a little scepticism.
By 2001 we will implement new viability criteria to help promote integrated education — 2% of education. By 2001 we will implement new viability criteria to help promote Irish-medium education — only 1% of the population can speak Irish. Where are our priorities? We then have some obscure statement about an Environment and Heritage Service education strategy. Alban Maginness is right, and those Ministers who have taken themselves seriously have put down a programme that can be costed and targeted with an implementation date. In many cases we have wish lists. Education is every citizens’ bedrock, regardless of class or creed. The Minister may have been a field marshal elsewhere, but the abilities demonstrated in this document are those of a field mouse — maybe a Mickey Mouse.
We can turn to other areas that have been neglected in the past few years. The Minister of Health will review the cardiac services to assess their efficiency and effectiveness and develop best practice. We have backlogs running into months. The Western Health and Social Services Board has been forced to send patients to London. It was cheaper to send the patient and his wife to London than to have the operation here in Northern Ireland. Why do we not treat hip replacements in the same way? Why have we not tackled the problem? Rather than a wish list, we have developed a review of cardiac services. It can be done, but it has not been done. The truth of the matter is that there is neither the will nor the ability within those Departments.
When we look at the packaging of care, on page 34, we see four wish lists. The truth is that the patient’s charter has come off every hospital notice board. Already there has been a departure from what is written here.

Mr Derek Hussey: In section 1 of the draft Programme for Government I note a vision that we can all aspire to for a Utopia in Northern Ireland sometime in the future. In the meantime we have to address the first sentence of the mission statement on page 13:
"to make a difference to the lives of our people, enabling them to grow as a peaceful, fair and inclusive community."
I question the commitment of Sinn Féin Ministers and their Members to this statement and wonder when, if ever, the shadow of the gun will be removed from our society. My party, and every party on this side of the Chamber, questions that. The SDLP should also question that, but it seems to be adhering more to the Hume/Adams agreement than to the Belfast Agreement. Maybe there is another Programme for Government coming from that.
The broad-brush scope of sections 2 to 7 in the draft must be fine-tuned. I hope that the final programme the Executive produces will take on board the many concerns that have arisen today. We all know that everything cannot be done at once. In general I welcome the action plans, but I await greater detail on an overall prioritised list for implementation as asked for by Mr Close before I can give my final verdict.
Item 2.4 promises regeneration of the physical built environment and is most welcome, given that its remit extends across the whole community, rural and urban. It recognises that strong communities are central to economic, social and cultural development. I strongly support those Members who have already addressed the sincere concerns of the rural community, particularly in the west, with regard to equality of access to primary care services, hospital treatment and after-care facilities within the Health Service, under section 3. This must be done, as Mr Gibson has said, in a reasonable time.
One of the finest education systems in the world has been weakened by quick-fix, mainland-imposed policies. Any reviews under paragraph 4 of the programme must seek to restore confidence both inside and outside the school system, particularly in vocational areas of study. I welcome the development of this field, in both secondary and tertiary level education. In today’s world, education is closely linked to the creation of a secure competitive economy, as is the implementation of provincewide infrastructural policies. Therefore, I welcome the aim of ensuring that there will be an infrastructure for competition.
I seek assurance that the Executive’s final programme will ensure that priorities throughout Northern Ireland are treated equally. Actions under paragraph 6 to promote Northern Ireland’s image abroad are also most welcome. However, in the strategy for securing high-profile international events there must be a recognition of the need for appropriate facilities and for Northern Ireland to be considered as a whole in any marketing strategy.
Finally, I ask Ministers to consider very carefully the proposals for arrangements to ensure that the rates provide an adequate level of funding for public expenditure. I remind the Executive that, for three consecutive years, the regional rate was increased by 8% by direct rule Ministers. This was a cumulative rise of 26%, which, we were told, would be channelled specifically into infrastructural development. I am concerned that the Assembly should seek to continue this situation prior to a proposed review of rating policy by March 2002.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I have no further indication that Members wish to speak. The Ministers will now speak.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Go raibh maith agat, A LeasCheann Comhairle. I am grateful to my Colleague, Seán Farren, who opened this debate, but I stress the importance of the Programme for Government in setting our agenda on education.
We have a successful education system, which has shown progress in recent years. Our economic success depends on the quality of our education and training system. The experience of the South is an illustration of what can be achieved with a well-educated and highly-motivated workforce. Therefore, there is no alternative to investment in education if we want to improve the quality of people’s lives and offer them the prospect of fulfilling, well-paid and stable employment.
Our education system has improved in recent years, despite its legacy of problems and significant under- investment over a considerable period. However, much remains to be done. We have had one of the lowest levels of access to pre-school education in western Europe. We still face serious problems of low and under achievement. This was illustrated today when Ian Paisley Jr admitted that he had go to the Library to find out the meaning of the word "sustain".
We must also respond to the challenge of the digital revolution and to the phenomenal growth of ICT. We need a secondary education system which values our children and develops their potential to the maximum. I want to put the three "Ens" — encouragement, enlightenment and enjoyment — at the heart of our education system, and it is vital that we do so. This is the underlying rationale for the schools and youth sections of the Programme for Government, which is rooted in a clear analysis of our needs. We must invest in our education system to ensure that there is equality, excellence, choice and accessibility.
A central element of the Programme for Government is our pursuit of co-operation through the North/South Ministerial Council. Our education systems, North and South, spring from the same historical roots, and we face the same problems of under achievement and unfulfilled potential. We are both struggling to cater for the special educational needs of our most marginalized children. We need to co-operate, to share best practice and to develop joint provision for the most specialised forms of support. The North/South strand is a key element of my programme, which has the potential to deliver real and immediate benefits to all children. I am deeply concerned that the attitude and actions of the First Minister will impede this work and have a directly negative effect on the education of our children.
Many were sceptical of the Executive Committee’s ability to reach agreement on the draft Programme for Government. I am delighted to say that their scepticism was confounded, because those of us who support the agreement determined that this was an opportunity to deliver change and, within the monetary limitations imposed upon us, to make a real difference for all our people. I had hoped that we could enter this debate in that same spirit of co-operation and partnership. However, the decisions taken by the Ulster Unionist Council at the Waterfront Hall represent a full-frontal assault on the institutions established under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. It is bizarre that we are conducting a debate on an agreed Programme for Government, when the First Minister has informed his party that it is his objective to see the institutions suspended or collapsed.
The decisions taken by the Ulster Unionist Council must call into question the commitment of the Ulster Unionist Party. The party’s decisions also call into question the commitment of its Assembly team and its Ministers to the Programme for Government. Most pointedly, the attempt to obstruct the functioning of the North/South Ministerial Council blatantly contradicts the commitment in the draft Programme for Government to the development of North/South co-operation and relations. The exclusion imposed on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the First Minister’s discrimination against her, directly contradict the commitment he declared in the draft Programme for Government to equality, inclusivity and partnership.
The FirstMinister’s actions also fly in the face of his commitment to the Executive as a unifying force for the community. To have any prospect of achieving a cohesive, inclusive and just society requires, in the first instance, a cohesive, inclusive and just Executive Committee. We need to get real, folks. This debate is being conducted against a background of determined attempts by the Ulster Unionist Party to collapse this Assembly, and with it the other institutions in which we are involved. This is ridiculous.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Minister, your time is up.

Mr Martin McGuinness: The First Minister needs to rethink his approach, and I appeal to him to do that.

Mr Danny Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to establish the purpose of ministerial statements during this debate on the Programme for Government. My simple understanding was that Ministers would. at least be in a position to respond to points raised by Members — not to engage in speculation, or put forward their interpretation of the Ulster Unionist Council — [Interruption]

Mr Donovan McClelland: I am sorry, Mr Kennedy, but that is not a point of order. I call MrFoster, Minister of the Environment.

Mr Danny Kennedy: It is very clearly a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. What is the role — [Interruption]

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order. Please sit down, Mr Kennedy. I call Mr Foster, Minister of the Environment.

Mr Sam Foster: Despite the ominous and destructive Republican weapons of war, and the backdrop of terrorist activity in my home county of Fermanagh over the weekend — 13 years after Enniskillen — I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate. The Programme for Government is an important document which illustrates what can be achieved when local Ministers work together. It clearly demonstrates that a locally elected Executive can make a real and positive difference. This could be destroyed by Republican intransigence.
I was pleased with the emphasis placed on environmental matters by many Members today. Several Members referred to the importance of sustainability. My ministerial Colleagues and I support that. The Programme for Government undertakes to prepare a sustainable development strategy. Sustainable development covers every aspect of Government, and it ensures that we consider fully the needs of future generations.
That is equally important for environmental issues. The Programme for Government recognises the crucial importance of the environment to a healthy community and a competitive economy. This is supported by the draft budget allocation, which will be discussed tomorrow and which provides a 14.4% funding increase for my Department — a clear signal that the Executive has recognised the need to deal with former underfunding of environmental issues, road safety and local government functions. We will work to ensure that the additional £10million allocated in the draft budget for implementing EU Directives will help improve our air, land and water quality.
In reply to Rev Dr WilliamMcCrea, the budget for environmental programmes next year will increase by almost 40%. This is a true reflection of the importance that the Programme for Government places on environmental matters.
In this section of the debate, we are specifically considering the actions in the Programme for Government to secure a competitive economy.
The protection of the environment is critical for economic growth, and we want to ensure that businesses develop in a sustainable manner. International businesses in particular will be very aware of their environmental responsibilities, but these responsibilities are not just for them. Members will be aware of the major conference on climate change which commenced today in The Hague. Some 5,000 delegates from 180 countries will be discussing how greenhouse gas emissions can be cut. We must all take steps to ensure that the environment is protected.
The Programme for Government deals with other areas of my Department’s remit. Earlier in the year, I announced that I was increasing the number of road safety education officers and intensifying the road safety advertising campaign. The Programme for Government commits the Executive to a new road safety plan which will set out a strategy for further reductions in the totally unacceptable level of carnage on our roads.
Another aspect of my Department’s activity reflected in the Programme for Government is planning. A growing economy requires development, and we all want to encourage that. We also need to protect the environment and social amenities and, therefore, we need a proper and efficient planning process which will make a major contribution to facilitating economic growth. I have already initiated a review of the processes in the Planning Service, and I am committed to addressing the backlogs with planning applications and to furthering area development plans, including the major Belfast metropolitan area plan.
I also welcome the commitment to a review of public administration in the Programme for Government. I want to ensure an efficient and effective local government for ratepayers and full consultation for district councils in review plans.
As shown by the debate in the Assembly today, there has been a keen interest in the Programme for Government, and a number of Members have raised specific issues relating to my Department. In the short time available to me, I cannot address each of those issues, but I have sought to comment on the main themes. I trust that Members will realise the significance of the programme and give it their support.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I would like to place on record my thanks to ministerial Colleagues for their co-operation in ensuring that the importance of the rural economy and rural society is recognised in the draft Programme for Government. I also thank the great number of Members who have spoken in this debate about the importance of our rural economy and the agriculture industry. That proves — if proof were needed — the importance of the rural society to Northern Ireland.
In referring very briefly to the comments made by Jim Wells about early retirement, I remind him that that issue is not contained in the rural development regulation plan submitted to Brussels and, therefore, that it cannot now be introduced until the review stage. I have not ruled it out. I will remind Mr Wells, however, that the three and a half months of suspension of the Assembly — which he approved and supported — was at the time when the plan was being prepared, and we as an Executive and an Assembly were denied an input at that crucial stage.
I also wish to inform Mr Wells that the feedback I get on a daily basis from farmers in all sections of the community indicates that they want to retain their local Administration and that they appreciate the accessibility and responsiveness of a local Minister. If further proof were needed of that, we have it in this programme, which shows that the Assembly is responsive and that it is making a difference. This a clear spur to all of us to reach agreement and to ensure that the structures we have remain in place.
One area that has been very neglected under direct rule is agriculture. It is my intention to build on the impetus that has already been established. I am especially pleased to have secured a commitment that all major Government policies will in future be rural proofed. By this I mean that all major policy proposals will be carefully and objectively examined to determine their impact on rural dwellers. We all want to see public services being fairly made available to all people in Northern Ireland, regardless of where they live, and we want people to be able to realise their potential and their aspirations without being hampered by whether they live in a city or a town.
The draft Programme for Government also sets a new direction for assistance to farmers and gives a new impetus to rural development. I am acutely conscious of the genuine hardship being experienced by farmers and rural dwellers, but as I listen to them, I have also been struck by their sense of frustration. They believe that their views are not being listened to and that policy makers too often bring to bear an exclusively urban perspective on problems.
Rightly or wrongly, they fear that solutions may be adopted that do not fit rural circumstances. The Executive Committee is agreed that we need to take action now to ensure that we do not foster an urban/rural divide in a society that has already suffered too much from divisions. That is why the commitment to rural proofing is so important.
The draft Programme for Government contains an explicit commitment to build on the recommendations of the vision for the future of the agri-food industry exercise. It outlines initiatives to enhance the competitiveness of farming by improving quality, particularly beef quality, and by developing education and training programmes aimed at enhancing competitiveness.
There is also an emphasis on the environment that includes assisting the fishing industry to develop in a sustainable way and enhancing forestry programmes. Furthermore, there is an explicit commitment to the regeneration of rural areas, particularly the most disadvantaged. The proposed new approach covers not only agriculture, forestry and fisheries, but also the economy in rural areas and support for rural societies.
We have a well-established rural development programme, and we are integrating its contributions with the rest of Government to produce a co-ordinated approach. A good example of that is the initiative to establish a natural resource rural tourism programme which draws together my Department, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and the Environment and Heritage Service of the Department of the Environment.
I also welcome the commitment to work more closely with the South on a formal and strategic basis. In the cases of agriculture, fisheries and certain animal health issues, there are practical benefits. There is also support for the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. We will also be developing a strategy to promote rural development on a cross-border basis by working through various community initiatives with European Union support to develop network links and enhance different parts of the rural economy and society on a cross-border basis.
I also welcome the commitment to put rural community transport partnerships into operation, and the Department for Regional Development’s commitment to preparing a regional planning policy statement on the countryside, as well as their commitment to put in place 15 new rural transport partnerships.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Minister, the time is up.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I hope that I do not have to avail of the extra 13 seconds that the previous contributor used.
Some Members who spoke earlier were diverted into a series of political issues, but I do not wish to be so diverted. There are a number of matters within the Department for Regional Development’s responsibility that I intend to pursue vigorously in the forthcoming year. I will do that in keeping with my election commitment until we get a satisfactory governmental system that has the consent and support of the Unionist community as well as the existing one that has the consent of the Nationalist community.
Some Members referred to free fares for the elderly. That is a top priority for my Department. I have identified it as a priority, as did my predecessor, and we are determined that it should be introduced at the earliest opportunity.
Some references were made to the burden that was being placed on local councils as a result of the consultation exercise. Members will be aware that we had a series of consultation exercises and that this will be a voluntary scheme for councils that wish to participate. If Members do not wish to burden local councils, they will have, in the Budget debate, the opportunity to vote the several million pounds that would be required to have the scheme implemented and controlled directly by the Department for Regional Development. I would welcome that, as I bid for the money in the first instance.
The regional development strategy will provide the strategic planning to plan our infrastructure more effectively. I want to put in place innovative arrangements at sub- regional level to ensure the effective implementation of that strategy. The regional transportation strategy, which my officials are working on, is an offshoot of that. Many in the House, and those outside, commented favourably on the work of the officials who were on the railways taskforce. The same group is working on the regional transportation strategy. I hope to be able to bring out the first draft of that document before the summer recess. It will be of fundamental importance to the whole of NorthernIreland.
I will move to rail travel. I mentioned that the taskforce carried out very comprehensive and worthwhile work. A party Colleague said that under the draft budget £102million was put in place, but the figure is actually £105million. We are in a position to put the framework in place, but that will not be the ultimate solution. It will not deliver a two-tier rail service, but it will provide the infrastructure and the bedrock upon which we will build a comprehensive rail strategy for the whole of Northern Ireland, not just for the most frequently used lines.
In conclusion, I want to refer to two fundamentally important issues — the infrastructural fund and the reference to it in the Programme for Government regarding roads and water. The underinvestment is such that I will support any effort to get a one-off payment for an infrastructural fund. Several Members have mentioned this, but we need something substantial. Without encroaching on the next Member’s time, I want to thank the Regional Development Committee for its assistance throughout, and I look forward to its assistance in the coming year.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Sir Reg Empey: It is not possible, in the time available, to carry out a normal winding-up of the debate or to respond to the many points made.
However, I want to mention a matter raised by Mr Close on the procedures available to Members who wish to comment further. This is a draft Programme for Government, and it has been submitted to the Assembly for consideration and ultimate approval. We are currently seeking the views of Assembly Committees, particularly on actions relevant to the first year of the programme, but the views of others also have to be taken into account. The Civic Forum has been asked to consider the proposals set out in the draft programme and will give its views on those. The document has also been made available more generally to key stakeholders such as district councils, trade unions and representative bodies across many sectors and to other interested groups and individuals. People have been encouraged to respond with their views on its contents, and we welcome that. The feedback will be used to improve the document so that we can present a more detailed programme to the Assembly in the new year, one which will incorporate public-service agreements for each Department, which is fundamental to how the programme is joined up and the actions determined.
The third and concluding part of the debate focused on education, training, the economy and infrastructure. Like other priorities in the Programme for Government, these are important issues for our community’s future prosperity and quality of life. While I, and the Education, Regional Development, and Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Ministers clearly have lead roles in these priorities, all Ministers and Departments have a contribution to make in achieving these goals. The fact that in the last few minutes we have had contributions from the four parties making up the Executive is not without its own significance.
I thank the Members for their worthwhile contributions throughout the day, although at times one or two of them appeared to be on autopilot, probably blissfully unaware of what they were saying and participating in. Nevertheless, the general contribution has been important. Members have made some very good suggestions that should be followed up.
These suggestions should be taken up in the Committees’ Consideration Stage, and I welcome the fact that people were able, albeit briefly, to make an initial response to the programme. Copies of Hansard will be available to the Departments. I have asked my officials to take note of certain points on which I picked up, in the context of my portfolio, and other Ministers will do the same. Ultimately, we have a unique opportunity to make a real difference to this community, in spite of our political problems. The Minister of Education and his colleagues made known their views. However, it is an unavoidable fact that they have a major contribution to make and a responsibility for these matters. The problems we face today are not for someone else but for everyone to deal with — perhaps Mr McGuinness will devote some of his attention to this fact.
The programme does have its weaknesses, and there are areas in need of improvement, but it has nevertheless been a comprehensive attempt to merge, for the first time, the various strands of Government, the different themes and the cross-cutting elements. It has been an attempt to get away from the silo mentality and to try to offer a vision of what this Province could be like if we get the opportunity to implement the programme.
We must bear in mind the 30 years of misery which have gone before us, with all the wasted opportunities, and the fact that we have very little time left to catch up with our major competitors. European funding will come to an end in five or six years’ time; competition is at an all-time high; and developing countries throughout the world are snapping at our heels. Nobody owes Northern Ireland a living, and my Colleagues will be doing their best to provide the best possible service and infrastructure, using the resources available, to provide the people of Northern Ireland with a real future for themselves and their children. I commend this programme to the House.

Mr David Ford: This morning, some of us noticed that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister did not even have the manners to remain in the Chamber to hear the first round of speeches. However, is it in order for the Question to be put, without either of the proposers of the motion being present?

Mr Speaker: It is in order. Any Minister can represent the Executive.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly notes the Executive Committee’s proposed Programme for Government; notes that it will guide the public spending plans for 2001-02 in the Budget; notes that the Programme for Government will be presented for the approval of the Assembly in the New Year, embracing public service agreements for all Departments.
Adjourned at 6.48 pm.